Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-01922/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-01922-0/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

HOMER EARL HAWKINS,

Plaintiff,

v.

RALPH DIAZ, et al.,

Defendants.

_____________________________________/

Case No. 1:14-cv-01922-AWI-SKO (PC)

ORDER ADDRESSING MOTION FOR 

CLARIFICATION

(Doc. 9)

Plaintiff Homer Earl Hawkins, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed this civil action in 

Kings County Superior Court on July 7, 2014. Plaintiff seeks relief in the main pursuant to the 

Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. § 12131, and the Rehabilitation Act, 29 U.S.C. § 794. 

Defendants Davis and Carr filed a notice of removal on December 3, 2014, 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a), 

and they have been granted an extension of time to file a response to Plaintiff’s complaint, to 

commence following statutory screening, 28 U.S.C. § 1915A; Fed. R. Civ. P. 81(c)(2). 

On January 7, 2015, Defendants filed a motion seeking clarification regarding their 

extension of time, which was granted by order filed December 5, 2014. Defendants’ uncertainty 

arises from the text of the docket entry, which indicated their answer was due January 8, 2015, 

notwithstanding the order granting them an extension of time pending screening. 

Parties are bound by orders issued by the Court, which may include minute or text only 

orders. Docketing of non-minute/text orders, however, is merely an administrative function which 

Case 1:14-cv-01922-AWI-SKO Document 11 Filed 07/01/15 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

is performed by the Clerk’s Office. Parties are bound by the terms of orders; they may not and 

should not rely on administrative docket entries which merely describe orders. 

By this order, Defendants’ motion for clarification is HEREBY DEEMED ADDRESSED 

and RESOLVED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 30, 2015 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:14-cv-01922-AWI-SKO Document 11 Filed 07/01/15 Page 2 of 2