From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Ware v. McDonald

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALI FORNIA
Aug 17, 2012
No. 2:12-cv-1505 MCE KJN P (E.D. Cal. Aug. 17, 2012)

Opinion

No. 2:12-cv-1505 MCE KJN P

08-17-2012

MARTIN WARE, Plaintiff, v. M. McDONALD, et al., Defendants.


ORDER

On August 9, 2012, plaintiff filed a document styled "Motion to Permit Subpoena Upon Defendant." (Dkt. No. 19.) Plaintiff's motion for a subpoena is premature. On July 30, 2012, plaintiff's amended complaint was dismissed, and plaintiff was granted thirty days in which to file a second amended complaint. Thus, no operative complaint is presently on file. Moreover, no defendant has yet been served with process, and no answer has been filed. Therefore, plaintiff's request for subpoena is premature. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff's August 9, 2012 motion (dkt. no. 19) is denied without prejudice.

_________________

KENDALL J. NEWMAN

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE


Summaries of

Ware v. McDonald

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALI FORNIA
Aug 17, 2012
No. 2:12-cv-1505 MCE KJN P (E.D. Cal. Aug. 17, 2012)
Case details for

Ware v. McDonald

Case Details

Full title:MARTIN WARE, Plaintiff, v. M. McDONALD, et al., Defendants.

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALI FORNIA

Date published: Aug 17, 2012

Citations

No. 2:12-cv-1505 MCE KJN P (E.D. Cal. Aug. 17, 2012)