Davis v. Walker

Full title: KENNARD LEE DAVIS, Plaintiff, v. JAMES WALKER et al., Defendants.

Court: United States District Court, Ninth Circuit, California, E.D. California

Date published: Feb 9, 2015

2:10-cv-2139 KJM DAD P (E.D. Cal. Feb. 9, 2015)

Opinion

KENNARD LEE DAVIS, Plaintiff, v. JAMES WALKER et al., Defendants. No. 2:10-cv-2139 KJM DAD P United States District Court, E.D. California. February 9, 2015

          ORDER

          DALE A. DROZD, Magistrate Judge.

         Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding through appointed counsel and with an appointed guardian ad litem ("GAL"). Before the court appointed plaintiff's counsel and GAL, plaintiff filed a motion to amend his complaint. In light of the court's appointments, the court will deny plaintiff's pro se motion to amend without prejudice to the renewal of that motion by counsel. In addition, by separate order, the court will set this matter for a status conference and permit telephonic appearance. Before doing so, however, the court will direct the parties to meet and confer and contact the undersigned's courtroom deputy with a mutually agreeable date for that status conference.

         Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff's motion to amend (Doc. No. 90) is denied without prejudice; and

2. Within thirty days of the date of this order, the parties are directed to meet and confer on a date for a status conference and contact Pete Buzo, the court deputy of the undersigned magistrate judge, at pbuzo@caed.uscourts.gov, with an agreeable date.