From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Hollis v. Downing

United States District Court, E.D. California
Dec 2, 2010
No. 2:09-cv-3431 FCD KJN P (E.D. Cal. Dec. 2, 2010)

Opinion

No. 2:09-cv-3431 FCD KJN P.

December 2, 2010


ORDER


Plaintiff has requested an extension of time to re-serve his oppositions on defendants and for the court to find his oppositions timely-filed under the mailbox rule. Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266, 270-72, 275 (1988). Plaintiff's oppositions were timely filed and defendants have received plaintiff's oppositions via CM/ECF electronic filing. Therefore, plaintiff is not required to re-serve the oppositions on defendants. Defendants' motions now stand submitted and plaintiff shall file no further documents in connection with these pending motions.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff's November 15, 2010 motion is partially granted.

2. Plaintiff's oppositions are deemed timely filed. Plaintiff is not required to reserve the oppositions.

3. Defendants' motions stand submitted. Plaintiff shall file no further documents in connection with these pending motions.

DATED: December 1, 2010


Summaries of

Hollis v. Downing

United States District Court, E.D. California
Dec 2, 2010
No. 2:09-cv-3431 FCD KJN P (E.D. Cal. Dec. 2, 2010)
Case details for

Hollis v. Downing

Case Details

Full title:MARVIN GLENN HOLLIS, Plaintiff, v. M.S. DOWNING, et al., Defendants

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

Date published: Dec 2, 2010

Citations

No. 2:09-cv-3431 FCD KJN P (E.D. Cal. Dec. 2, 2010)