Opinion
10-cv-01029-RS
08-31-2023
FARID SHAHRIVAR, Plaintiff, v. DAVID SYKES, et al., Defendants.
ORDER RE SCHEDULING
RICHARD SEEBORG CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Plaintiff has filed an “administrative motion” seeking scheduling and other relief with respect to motions he has filed or may later file, and regarding a motion for attorney fees and a cost bill filed by defendants. Plaintiff presently has pending a motion under Rule 59, set to be heard on September 29, 2023. By prior order, defendants' motion for attorney fees will be decided without a hearing. Plaintiff represents he may file an additional motion under Rule 60. Plaintiff contend he needs additional time in light of his pro se status and limited availability of the pro se help desk.
Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7-1(b), plaintiff's Rule 59 motion (Dkt. 291) will be decided without oral argument, and the hearing is vacated. The deadline for opposition to that motion is extended to October 5, 2023, with any reply to be filed no later than October 12, 2023. Any further motion plaintiff may file under Rule 60 or otherwise will also be decided without oral argument. Any such motion must be filed at least two weeks prior to October 5, 2023, and shall thereafter follow the same briefing schedule as the pending Rule 59 motion. Plaintiff is cautioned, however, that nothing in this order extends any deadlines to file a Rule 60 or other motion that is not already pending.
Plaintiff's deadline for opposing the attorney fee motion is also extended to October 5, 2023, with any reply to be filed no later than October 12, 2023. Plaintiff's deadline for filing any objections to defendants' cost bill is likewise extended to October 5, 2023. Plaintiffs' request to stay proceedings on the fee motion and the cost bill pending resolution of his post-trial motions and/or his Ninth Circuit appeal is denied.
IT IS SO ORDERED.