Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_07-cv-01831/USCOURTS-azd-2_07-cv-01831-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 05:552 Freedom of Information Act

---

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

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Daniel Saul Coven, )

)

Plaintiff, ) No. CIV 07-1831-PHX-RCB

)

vs. ) O R D E R

)

United States Office of )

Personnel Management )

)

Defendant. ) )

On July 11, 2008, plaintiff pro se filed a “Petition to

Dismiss Motion to Stay and Reverse Order to Stay” (doc. 26). Among

other things, plaintiff is seeking to have this court reverse its

June 5, 2008, order staying this action for ninety (90) days

pending notification by defendant “indicating whether or not

plaintiff has exhausted his administrative remedies.” See Doc. 24

at 1. 

Plaintiff is seeking to reverse that stay order because

supposedly he never received the motion to stay due to his change

of address, and thus could not “respond timely” to that motion. 

Doc. 26 at 1. The court’s docket sheet reflects, however, that on 

Case 2:07-cv-01831-RCB Document 28 Filed 07/17/08 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 -

April 29, 2008, plaintiff filed his “Notice of Change of Address”

(doc. 18). Moreover, the certificate of service attached to the

defendant’s motion for a stay indicates that plaintiff was served

at his new address. See Doc. 22 at 4. Thus, because it appears to

the court that plaintiff did have notice of the stay motion, 

IT IS ORDERED that plaintiff’s “request[]” to have that motion

“dismissed[,]” and the stay order reversed, is DENIED. See Doc. 26

at 1.

DATED this 17th day of July, 2008.

Copies to counsel of record and to plaintiff pro se

Case 2:07-cv-01831-RCB Document 28 Filed 07/17/08 Page 2 of 2