Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Donald Glass v. R. Fields

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA


December 18, 2012

DONALD GLASS,
PLAINTIFF,
v.
R. FIELDS, ET AL., DEFENDANTS

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Barbara A. McAuliffe United States Magistrate Judge

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR CLARIFICATION AND STRIKING

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR AN EXTENSION OF TIME AND ORDER DISREGARDING PLAINTIFF'S REPLY TO OPPOSITION (ECF No. 127, 128) AMENDED ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR AN EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE A REPLY (ECF No. 124)

AMENDED ORDER DISREGARDING PLAINTIFF'S REPLY TO OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR ATTENDANCE OF UNINCARCERATED WITNESSES AS UNTIMELY (ECF No. 125)

Plaintiff Donald Glass ("Plaintiff") is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On October 18, 2012, Plaintiff filed a motion for a subpoena duces tecum. (ECF No. 114.) Defendants filed an opposition to the motion on October 26, 2012. (ECF No. 118.) On November 19, 2012, Plaintiff filed a motion for an extension of time to file a reply to the opposition to his motion for a subpoena duces tecum and a reply to Defendants' opposition to his motion for the attendance of unincarcerated witnesses. (ECF Nos. 124, 125.) The Court had already considered Plaintiff's motions, and on November 19, 2012, an order issued granting in part Plaintiff's motion for the attendance of unincarcerated witnesses, and on November 20, 2012, Plaintiff's motion for a subpoena duces tecum was denied. (ECF Nos. 123, 126.) On November 26, 2012, an order issued denying Plaintiff's motion for an extension of time and disregarding Plaintiff's reply to Defendants' opposition. (ECF No. 127.) On December 14, 2012, Plaintiff filed a motion for clarification because the order incorrectly identified his motion and reply as addressing incarcerated witnesses, and he did not receive a copy of the order referenced in the order. (ECF No. 128.) Plaintiff's motion for clarification shall be granted and the order issued November 26, 2012, shall be stricken from the record, the Clerk's Office shall be directed to send a copy of the order issued November 19, 2012, to Plaintiff, and this amended order shall issue.

Defendants' opposition was served on October 26, 2012, and Plaintiff's reply was due by November 5, 2012. Plaintiff's proof of service for the reply to Defendants' opposition is dated November 8, 2012. The reply was not timely served and shall be disregarded.

Plaintiff's motion for a subpoena duces tecum has been denied as an improper attempt to conduct discovery after the discovery cut-off date, and therefore, the Court declines to grant the motion for an extension of time to file a reply.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff's motion for clarification, filed December 14, 2012, is GRANTED;

2. The order issued November 26, 2012, is STRICKEN FROM THE RECORD;

3. Plaintiff's motion for an extension of time to file a reply, filed November 19, 2012, is denied;

4. Plaintiff's reply to Defendants' opposition to the motion for the attendance of unincarcerated witnesses, filed November 19, 2102, is disregarded; and

5. The Clerk's Office is directed to send Plaintiff a copy of the order denying in part his motion for the attendance of unincarcerated witnesses, issued November 19, 2012.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

20121218

© 1992-2012 VersusLaw Inc.



Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.