From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Brown v. City of Redding

United States District Court, E.D. California
May 6, 2008
No. CIV S-08-0279-LKK-CMK (E.D. Cal. May. 6, 2008)

Opinion

No. CIV S-08-0279-LKK-CMK.

May 6, 2008


ORDER


Plaintiff, who is proceeding pro se, brings this civil action. Pending before the court is plaintiff's document entitled "Motion to Dismiss" and docketed as a request for permission to file a further amended complaint (Doc. 21). A review of plaintiff's filing, however, reflects that it is a request for an extension of time to respond to defendants' motions to dismiss (Docs. 13 and 14). Specifically, plaintiff seeks a 90-day extension of time to July 31, 2008, to file a response. Plaintiff's filing will, therefore, be construed as a request for an extension of time. Good cause appearing therefor, plaintiff's request will be granted, in part. Plaintiff may file an opposition within 45 days of the date of this order.

The parties are informed that they may, if all consent in writing, have this case assigned to a United States Magistrate Judge for all purposes while preserving their right to appeal any final judgment directly to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit or, where appropriate, to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(c)(1), (3); see also E.D. Cal. Local Rule 73-305(a), (c). The parties are advised that they are free to withhold consent and that doing so shall not result in any adverse substantive consequences. See § 636(c)(2). If all parties consent to magistrate judge jurisdiction, the action will be reassigned to the undersigned for all purposes, including entry of final judgment. See Local Rule 73-301 and Local Rule 73-305(b).

A review of the record reflects that no party to this action has filed a written election regarding consent to the exercise of full jurisdiction by a magistrate judge. The Clerk of the Court will be directed to provide the parties with the appropriate form which the parties shall complete, indicating either consent or non-consent as they may choose, and file with the court.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff's document entitled "Motion to Dismiss" and docketed as a request for permission to file a further amended complaint (Doc. 21) is construed as a motion for an extension of time to file a response to defendants' motions to dismiss and, so construed, is granted in part;

2. Plaintiff may file a response within 45 days of the date of this order;

3. The Clerk of the Court is directed to forward to all parties the court's "Notice of Availability of a Magistrate Judge to Exercise Jurisdiction and Appeal Instructions" along with the accompanying consent election form;

4. The parties shall complete and file the consent election form within 45 days of the date of this order.


Summaries of

Brown v. City of Redding

United States District Court, E.D. California
May 6, 2008
No. CIV S-08-0279-LKK-CMK (E.D. Cal. May. 6, 2008)
Case details for

Brown v. City of Redding

Case Details

Full title:BEDFORD ALVIS BROWN, Plaintiff, v. CITY OF REDDING, et al., Defendants

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

Date published: May 6, 2008

Citations

No. CIV S-08-0279-LKK-CMK (E.D. Cal. May. 6, 2008)