From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Oliver v. Carey

United States District Court, E.D. California
Oct 2, 2009
No. CIV S-06-0390 MCE EFB P (E.D. Cal. Oct. 2, 2009)

Opinion

No. CIV S-06-0390 MCE EFB P.

October 2, 2009


ORDER


Plaintiff is a prisoner without counsel seeking relief for alleged civil rights violations. See 42 U.S.C. § 1983. In the amended complaint filed January 17, 2007, plaintiff claims that defendants Noriega, Mahmoud, Solomon and Thor were deliberately indifferent to his serious medical needs. Dckt. No. 12. Defendant Thor, represented by the same counsel as Noriega, has filed a motion to dismiss pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6). Dckt. No. 36. Solomon also has filed motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6). Dckt. Nos. 30. In the interest of efficient disposition of this action, Noriega requests an extension of time to answer the complaint until a reasonable time after the court rules on the other defendants' motions to dismiss. Dckt. No. 36. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 6(b).

Dr. Mahmoud has not been served with process.

Defendant Noriega's August 19, 2009, motion for an extension of time is granted. His answer shall be filed simultaneously with that of defendant Thor.

So ordered.


Summaries of

Oliver v. Carey

United States District Court, E.D. California
Oct 2, 2009
No. CIV S-06-0390 MCE EFB P (E.D. Cal. Oct. 2, 2009)
Case details for

Oliver v. Carey

Case Details

Full title:JAMES OLIVER Plaintiff, v. TOMAS CAREY, et al., Defendants

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

Date published: Oct 2, 2009

Citations

No. CIV S-06-0390 MCE EFB P (E.D. Cal. Oct. 2, 2009)