Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00834/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00834-7/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

27

28

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LAFAYETTE CADE,

Plaintiff,

v.

SUZAN HUBBARD, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

CASE NO. 1:05-CV-00834-AWI-LJO-P

ORDER GRANTING EXTENSION OF TIME

TO FILE SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

AND AN OBJECTION TO THE FINDINGS

AND RECOMMENDATIONS

(Doc. 20)

ORDER DENYING EXTENSION OF TIME TO

RESPOND TO ORDERS DENYING

MOTIONS FOR ISSUANCE OF WRIT AND

SUMMONSES

(Doc. 20) 

Plaintiff Lafayette Cade (“plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma

pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On January 17, 2006, the Court

issued an order dismissing plaintiff’s amended complaint with leave to amend, a Findings and

Recommendations recommending denial of plaintiff’s motion for preliminary injunctive relief, an

order denying plaintiff’s motion for the issuance of a writ of habeas corpus ad testificandum, and an

order denying plaintiff’s motion for the issuance of summonses. On February 21, 2006, plaintiff

filed a motion seeking an extension of time to respond to the orders and Findings and

Recommendations.

///

///

Case 1:05-cv-00834-AWI-LJO Document 22 Filed 02/27/06 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

27

28

2

Plaintiff’s motion for an extension of time to file a second amended complaint and an

objection to the Findings and Recommendations shall be granted. However, plaintiff’s motion for

an extension of time to respond to the other two orders shall be denied.

Pursuant to Local Rule 78-230(m), there is no hearing on plaintiff’s motion for preliminary

injunctive relief. Such motions are submitted on the papers. Id. Because there is no hearing, there

is no ground for the issuance of a transportation writ. With respect to the issuance of summonses,

under no circumstance will plaintiff be issued service documents until the court has found that

service of his pleading is appropriate. Plaintiff has already been provided with an explanation of the

procedure. (Docs. 14, 19.)

Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s motion for an extension of time to file a second amended complaint and

an objection to the Findings and Recommendations is GRANTED;

2. Plaintiff has thirty (30) days from the date of service of this order to file a second

amended complaint and an objection to the Findings and Recommendations; and

3. Plaintiff’s motion for an extension of time to respond to the orders denying his

motions for the issuance of a transportation writ and for the issuance of summonses

is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 24, 2006 /s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill 

b9ed48 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-00834-AWI-LJO Document 22 Filed 02/27/06 Page 2 of 2