From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Spence v. State

United States District Court, E.D. California
Aug 14, 2006
No. CIV S-03-1195 LKK DAD P (E.D. Cal. Aug. 14, 2006)

Opinion

No. CIV S-03-1195 LKK DAD P.

August 14, 2006


ORDER


On July 11, 2006, the court received plaintiff's request for a stay and other orders. Plaintiff's filing was construed as a request to extend his time to comply with deadlines. By order signed July 17, 2006, the court granted the request, established a briefing schedule for defendants' pending motion for summary judgment, and modified the scheduling order previously filed on December 14, 2005. On July 18, 2006, the court received plaintiff's second request to extend time or for a stay. The second request will be denied as duplicative.

On July 26, 2006, plaintiff filed a notice of change of address to a private address in Sacramento. The address has been entered on the court's docket. Plaintiff is advised that the rules applicable to documents mailed by prisoners do not apply to unincarcerated litigants. For litigants who are not incarcerated, a document is filed when it is "delivered into the custody of the Clerk and accepted by the Clerk for inclusion in the official records of the action." Local Rule 1-101. Plaintiff's subsequent filings must be received by the Clerk for filing on or before any due date set by court order or applicable rules. Plaintiff is cautioned that untimely filings may be disregarded.

IT IS ORDERED that plaintiff's July 18, 2006 request to extend time or for a stay is denied as duplicative of plaintiff's July 11, 2006 request.


Summaries of

Spence v. State

United States District Court, E.D. California
Aug 14, 2006
No. CIV S-03-1195 LKK DAD P (E.D. Cal. Aug. 14, 2006)
Case details for

Spence v. State

Case Details

Full title:GERALD SPENCE, Plaintiff, v. STATE OF CALIFORNIA, et al., Defendants

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

Date published: Aug 14, 2006

Citations

No. CIV S-03-1195 LKK DAD P (E.D. Cal. Aug. 14, 2006)