De Puente-Hudson v. Adams
Filing
46
ORDER GRANTING Plaintiff's 43 Motion for Instruction on Obligation to Oppose Motions for Summary Judgment signed by Magistrate Judge Gary S. Austin on 3/30/2010. (Bradley, A)
<![CDATA[
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Plaintiff Marcos De Puente-Hudson is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights 17 action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Defendant Derral G. Adams removed this action from Kings 18 County Superior Court on August 19, 2008, and pursuant to the Court's order of February 19, 2009, 19 this action is proceeding on Plaintiff's complaint, filed August 19, 2008, against Defendant Adams 20 for enacting a magazine policy that allegedly violates the First Amendment of the United States 21 Constitution. 22 On March 29, 2010, Plaintiff filed a Motion/Request for the Court to Instruct Plaintiff of His 23 Obligation to Oppose a Motion for Summary Judgment. (Doc. 43.) Because this case was opened 24 in this Court via removal, First and Second Informational Orders were inadvertently not issued in 25 the standard course of proceedings. Instruction on obligations to oppose motions for summary 26 judgment are found in the Second Informational Order. 27 Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion for Instruction on Obligation 28 1 / v. DERRAL G. ADAMS, Defendant. (Doc. 43) MARCO DE PUENTE-HUDSON, Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR INSTRUCTION ON OBLIGATION TO OPPOSE MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT CASE NO. 1:08-cv-01228-OWW-GSA PC
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
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
to Oppose Motions for Summary Judgment is GRANTED; and the Clerk's Office shall serve a First Informational Order and a Second Informational Order on all parties in this proceeding.
IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: 6i0kij
March 30, 2010
/s/ Gary S. Austin UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
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?
