From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Kunkel v. Dill

United States District Court, Ninth Circuit, California, E.D. California
Dec 18, 2013
1:09-cv-0686 BAM P (E.D. Cal. Dec. 18, 2013)

Opinion


PATRICK KUNKEL, Plaintiff, v. N. DILL, et al., Defendants. No. 1:09-cv-0686 BAM P United States District Court, E.D. California. December 18, 2013

          ORDER

          KENDALL J. NEWMAN, Magistrate Judge.

         Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding without counsel. On November 6, 2013, plaintiff filed a motion, signed October 25, 2013, asking the court to contact prison officials to obtain payment of the settlement proceeds. (ECF No. 203.) On November 22, 2013, plaintiff filed a letter, signed November 17, 2013, stating he had not yet received the settlement check. (ECF No. 205.) On November 26, 2013, counsel for defendants filed a response stating that the settlement funds were posted to plaintiff's account, and asked plaintiff to check his account again. (ECF No. 204.) More than seven days have passed, Local Rule 230(l), and plaintiff has not responded to defendants' response to plaintiff's motion.

         In light of defendants' response, and plaintiff's failure to reply, it appears that plaintiff has received the settlement proceeds. Thus, plaintiff's motion is denied without prejudice.

         Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff's November 6, 2013 motion (ECF No. 203) is denied without prejudice.


Summaries of

Kunkel v. Dill

United States District Court, Ninth Circuit, California, E.D. California
Dec 18, 2013
1:09-cv-0686 BAM P (E.D. Cal. Dec. 18, 2013)
Case details for

Kunkel v. Dill

Case Details

Full title:PATRICK KUNKEL, Plaintiff, v. N. DILL, et al., Defendants.

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

Date published: Dec 18, 2013

Citations

1:09-cv-0686 BAM P (E.D. Cal. Dec. 18, 2013)