O'Roy v. Mares
Filing
69
ORDER DENYING Plaintiff's Untimely 65 , 66 Motions signed by District Judge Frank R. Zapata on 11/23/2011. (Sant Agata, S)
<![CDATA[
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
8
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
9
10
Rickey O’Roy,
11
Plaintiff,
12
vs.
13
Correctional Officer Mares,
14
Defendant.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
No. 1:05-CV-00339-FRZ
ORDER
15
Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s extremely untimely motion for an “extension
16
of time to file amended motion for attendance of incarcerated witnesses” (Doc. 65) and the
17
pertinent second motion for attendance of incarcerated witnesses (Doc. 66).1 On 5/24/11,
18
the Court issued a clear and detailed Order (Doc. 45) regarding the requirements for Plaintiff
19
to secure the attendance of witnesses at trial which required Plaintiff to file motions in
20
compliance with the Court’s Order by 7/29/11. While Plaintiff filed timely motions in July
21
of 2011 regarding the attendance of witnesses, he failed to comply with the Court’s Order
22
in any material respect. Thereafter, the Court issued an Order (Doc. 62) finalizing all matters
23
related to trial which included a denial of Plaintiff’s motions for attendance of witnesses.
24
Nonetheless, approximately six months after the Court’s Order pertaining to the attendance
25
of witnesses and two weeks prior to the trial set for 12/6/11, Plaintiff filed the above motions
26
related to the attendance of witnesses. Plaintiff offers no justification for these untimely
27
28
1
Both motions were filed on 11/17/11; Defendant filed an opposition on 11/22/11.
1
motions other than summarily stating that he didn’t completely understand the Court’s
2
previous Order as he is a lay person who has mental health issues (Doc. 66). Plaintiff’s
3
untimely motions (Doc. 65, 66) are denied.
4
5
DATED this 23 rd day of November, 2011.
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-2-
]]>
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?
