From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Meador v. Hammer

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Nov 28, 2012
No. 2:11-cv-3342 LKK AC P (E.D. Cal. Nov. 28, 2012)

Opinion

No. 2:11-cv-3342 LKK AC P

11-28-2012

GORDON D. MEADOR, Plaintiff, v. M. HAMMER, et al., Defendants.


ORDER

Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding with counsel, seeks relief pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Defendants, on August 23, 2012, filed a motion to dismiss for failure to exhaust administrative remedies, to which plaintiff filed an opposition on October 28, 2012, after which defendants filed their reply on November 9, 2012. However, because plaintiff is being represented by counsel, the provisions of L.R. 230(l) are no longer applicable in this case. Instead, the other provisions of L.R. 230 must be applied. L.R. 230(b) provides that "[e]xcept as otherwise provided by these Rules or as ordered or allowed by the Court, all motions shall be noticed on the motion calendar of the assigned Judge or Magistrate Judge."

Plaintiff was granted two extensions of time to file the opposition and defendants were granted an extension of time to file a reply. See Orders, filed on September 18, 2012, October 18, 2012 and November 8, 2012.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that, while no further briefing from the parties is required at this time, counsel for defendants must set this matter for hearing on this court's law and motion calendar by contacting the courtroom deputy, Valerie Callen, at (916) 930-4199.

_______________

ALLISON CLAIRE

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE


Summaries of

Meador v. Hammer

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Nov 28, 2012
No. 2:11-cv-3342 LKK AC P (E.D. Cal. Nov. 28, 2012)
Case details for

Meador v. Hammer

Case Details

Full title:GORDON D. MEADOR, Plaintiff, v. M. HAMMER, et al., Defendants.

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Date published: Nov 28, 2012

Citations

No. 2:11-cv-3342 LKK AC P (E.D. Cal. Nov. 28, 2012)