Opinion
No. 2:10-cv-02220 GEB DAD P
01-18-2013
GEORGE LEE, Plaintiff, v. STEPHEN PASS, et al., Defendants.
ORDER
Before the court is defendants' December 28, 2012 request for an extension of time to file their dispositive motion and a document filed by plaintiff styled as a "Motion To Settle Claim Conjoined with Motion To Dismiss Claim on Defendant McDonald [sic]."
As to defendants' request for an extension of time, pursuant to the court's order filed on July 19, 2012, the deadline for the filing of dispositive motions in this action was January 4, 2013. Defendants request an extension of approximately thirty days to February 19, 2013 in which to file dispositive motions. Good cause appearing, defendants' request will be granted.
In his motion, plaintiff asserts that in a "related" state court action he filed in the Solano County Superior Court he received, but refused, settlement offers made by a Deputy Attorney General. (Doc. No. 41 at 1-2.) In his motion and "prayer for relief," plaintiff now requests that he "receive a settlement amount of $300.00 which is $200.00 less then the defendants [sic] offer" allegedly made in his related state court action. (Id. at 3.) Plaintiff also requests that defendant McDonald be dismissed from this action and that defendants be responsible for all costs and attorney fees incurred in this case. (Id.) The court will grant plaintiff's request to dismiss defendant McDonald from this action. However, the court cannot compel a defendant to made a settlement offer in this action. Therefore, plaintiff's motion will be granted only as to his request that defendant McDonald be dismissed.
Plaintiff was originally proceeding against four defendants in this action. On July 19, 2012, the undersigned recommended that the motion to dismiss brought on behalf of defendants Behler and White be granted due to plaintiff's failure to state a cognizable claim against them. (Doc. No. 38 at 4-5.) Those findings and recommendations were adopted by the assigned District Judge on August 27, 2012. (Doc. No. 40.) As discussed above, plaintiff has now voluntarily requested the dismissal of defendant McDonald and that request has been granted. Accordingly, this action is now proceeding solely against defendant Williams on plaintiff's access to court claim.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. Plaintiff's December 17, 2012 motion (Doc. No. 41) is granted in part and defendant McDonald is dismissed from this action.
2. Defendants' December 28, 2012 request for an extension of time (Doc. No. 42) is granted.
3. Defendant Williams shall file any dispositive motion on or before February 19, 2013. Plaintiff's opposition to the motion shall be filed thirty days after his receipt of the motion, and defendant's reply, if any, shall be filed within seven days thereafter.
_________________
DALE A. DROZD
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE