Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_00-cv-00302/USCOURTS-caed-2_00-cv-00302-5/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

 This filing did not contain a certificate of service attesting to service of plaintiff’s 1

request on counsel for defendants. Because counsel for defendants were provided notice of the

request through CM/ECF, this court will address the request. However, plaintiff is cautioned that

every filing submitted to the court must contain a certificate of service declaring service on

opposing counsel. See Local Rule 5-135(b) and (c).

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DONALD GLASS,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-00-0302 DFL JFM P

vs.

C.A. TERHUNE, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

On October 11, 2005, plaintiff filed a request for extension of time in which to file

a reply. However, plaintiff did not identify the document he wishes to file a reply to. By 1

separate order, this court has resolved all pending matters with the exception of plaintiff’s motion

for the attendance of inmate witnesses, which will be resolved in the pretrial order. At this time,

the record does not reflect that a reply is necessary. However, the denial of plaintiff’s request for

extension will be without prejudice to its renewal should plaintiff be able to identify an

Case 2:00-cv-00302-JKS-JFM Document 209 Filed 10/14/05 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

2

unresolved issue that requires a reply. Plaintiff states he did not receive a copy of defendants’

pretrial statement which was filed on September 30, 2005. Defendants’ pretrial statement

included a certificate of service attesting to service of a copy of said document on plaintiff. 

Because plaintiff’s instant filing was signed on October 6, 2005, his copy may have reached him

by now.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s October 11, 2005 request

for extension is denied without prejudice. 

DATED: October 13, 2005.

/001

glas0302.den

Case 2:00-cv-00302-JKS-JFM Document 209 Filed 10/14/05 Page 2 of 2