From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

CADE v. HUBBARD

United States District Court, E.D. California
Feb 24, 2006
Case No. 1:05-CV-00834-AWI-LJO-P, (Doc. 20), (Doc. 20) (E.D. Cal. Feb. 24, 2006)

Opinion

Case No. 1:05-CV-00834-AWI-LJO-P, (Doc. 20), (Doc. 20).

February 24, 2006


ORDER GRANTING EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT AND AN OBJECTION TO THE FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ORDER DENYING EXTENSION OF TIME TO RESPOND TO ORDERS DENYING MOTIONS FOR ISSUANCE OF WRIT AND SUMMONSES


Plaintiff Lafayette Cade ("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 January 17, 2006, the Court issued an order dismissing plaintiff's amended complaint with leave to amend, a Findings and Recommendations recommending denial of plaintiff's motion for preliminary injunctive relief, an order denying plaintiff's motion for the issuance of a writ of habeas corpus ad testificandum, and an order denying plaintiff's motion for the issuance of summonses. On February 21, 2006, plaintiff filed a motion seeking an extension of time to respond to the orders and Findings and Recommendations.

Plaintiff's motion for an extension of time to file a second amended complaint and an objection to the Findings and Recommendations shall be granted. However, plaintiff's motion for an extension of time to respond to the other two orders shall be denied.

Pursuant to Local Rule 78-230(m), there is no hearing on plaintiff's motion for preliminary injunctive relief. Such motions are submitted on the papers. Id. Because there is no hearing, there is no ground for the issuance of a transportation writ. With respect to the issuance of summonses, under no circumstance will plaintiff be issued service documents until the court has found that service of his pleading is appropriate. Plaintiff has already been provided with an explanation of the procedure. (Docs. 14, 19.)

Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff's motion for an extension of time to file a second amended complaint and an objection to the Findings and Recommendations is GRANTED;
2. Plaintiff has thirty (30) days from the date of service of this order to file a second amended complaint and an objection to the Findings and Recommendations; and
3. Plaintiff's motion for an extension of time to respond to the orders denying his motions for the issuance of a transportation writ and for the issuance of summonses is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.


Summaries of

CADE v. HUBBARD

United States District Court, E.D. California
Feb 24, 2006
Case No. 1:05-CV-00834-AWI-LJO-P, (Doc. 20), (Doc. 20) (E.D. Cal. Feb. 24, 2006)
Case details for

CADE v. HUBBARD

Case Details

Full title:LAFAYETTE CADE, Plaintiff, v. SUZAN HUBBARD, et al., Defendants

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

Date published: Feb 24, 2006

Citations

Case No. 1:05-CV-00834-AWI-LJO-P, (Doc. 20), (Doc. 20) (E.D. Cal. Feb. 24, 2006)