From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Sanders v. York

United States District Court, E.D. California
Apr 18, 2007
No. CIV S-05-1989 GEB GGH P (E.D. Cal. Apr. 18, 2007)

Opinion

No. CIV S-05-1989 GEB GGH P.

April 18, 2007


ORDER


On March 2, 2007, the court ordered defendant Rubio to show cause why default should not be entered. On March 30, 2007, defendant filed a response to the show cause order. Although it is curious that CDCR makes legal representation decisions, i.e., who may be represented by the Attorney General, in lieu of the Attorney-General making the determination of who is entitled to legal representation under the laws of the State of California, apparently that is the case. Given that state of affairs, and based on the submission of the Attorney General demonstrating CDCR's confusion of Rubio's employee status, defendant Rubio's failure to file a timely answer is understandable. On April 3, 2007, defendant filed an answer.

Good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The order to show cause is discharged;

2. Plaintiff's January 19, 2007, request for default is denied.


Summaries of

Sanders v. York

United States District Court, E.D. California
Apr 18, 2007
No. CIV S-05-1989 GEB GGH P (E.D. Cal. Apr. 18, 2007)
Case details for

Sanders v. York

Case Details

Full title:AMANDO G. SANDERS, Plaintiff, v. M. YORK, et al., Defendants

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

Date published: Apr 18, 2007

Citations

No. CIV S-05-1989 GEB GGH P (E.D. Cal. Apr. 18, 2007)