From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Mayer v. Redix

United States District Court, E.D. California
Feb 8, 2011
No. CIV S-10-1552 GGH P (E.D. Cal. Feb. 8, 2011)

Opinion

No. CIV S-10-1552 GGH P.

February 8, 2011


ORDER


Plaintiff has requested a stay pending his imminent transfer to another facility. Plaintiff states that he is not allowed to know when he is leaving or where he will be sent but assures the court that he will provide immediate notice of his new address upon his arrival. In an order filed on December 8, 2010, the court directed the U.S. Marshal to serve process upon the defendants. At this point, no executed waivers of service have been filed and no defendant has yet appeared in this action. Once defendants have appeared and should they file a response to the amended complaint before plaintiff has filed a change of address notice, the court will consider this request for a stay as a motion for an extension of time and will rule on it at that point. For now, the motion will be vacated without prejudice as premature.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff's January 31, 2011 (docket # 17) motion for a stay, construed as a motion for an extension of time to respond to any filing by defendants, is vacated without prejudice as premature.

DATED: February 7, 2011


Summaries of

Mayer v. Redix

United States District Court, E.D. California
Feb 8, 2011
No. CIV S-10-1552 GGH P (E.D. Cal. Feb. 8, 2011)
Case details for

Mayer v. Redix

Case Details

Full title:CASEY D. MAYER, Plaintiff, v. LOUIS REDIX, et al., Defendants

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

Date published: Feb 8, 2011

Citations

No. CIV S-10-1552 GGH P (E.D. Cal. Feb. 8, 2011)