Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_00-cv-06697/USCOURTS-caed-1_00-cv-06697-5/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

27

28

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DAVID W. HOOKER,

Plaintiff,

v.

GEORGE GALAZA, et. al.,

Defendants.

 /

CV F 00 6697 OWW SMS P

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR COURT

ORDER IN RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF’S

MOTION FOR AN EXTENSION OF TIME

(Doc. 125.) 

 David W. Hooker (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis

in this civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 

On February 16, 2006, Plaintiff filed a Motion to extend time to file a Third Amended

Complaint as ordered by the Court. Defendants filed a Statement of Non-Opposition to the

Motion for an extension of time. The Court granted the Motion for an extension of time on

March 2, 2006, and served the Order on Plaintiff. This order gave Plaintiff to and including

April 20, 2006, to file his Third Amended Complaint. Plaintiff, however, did not submit a Third

Amended Complaint and thus, on April 20, 2006, the Court issued Findings and

Recommendations to dismiss the action for Plaintiff’s failure to comply with the Court Order and

prosecute the action. On April 25, 2006, Plaintiff moved for a Court Order resolving the Motion

for an extension of time filed on February 16, 2006. However, as noted above, that Motion was

Case 1:00-cv-06697-OWW -SMS Document 127 Filed 05/08/06 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

granted by the Court. A review of the Court record reveals that each of the Court’s Orders were

served on Plaintiff and were not returned to the Court. Thus, service is effective. 

Accordingly, the Court HEREBY ORDERS: 

1. The Motion for Court Order in response to Motion for Extension of time is

DENIED as moot. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 5, 2006 /s/ Sandra M. Snyder 

icido3 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:00-cv-06697-OWW -SMS Document 127 Filed 05/08/06 Page 2 of 2