Scalia

(PC) Beckett v. Scalia

Good Law
United States District Court, Eastern District of CaliforniaMarch 12, 20241:20-cv-01468California1,017 words

Opinion

trial_court Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 MATTHEW H. BECKETT, Case No. 1:20-cv-01468-JLT-CDB (PC)

12 Plaintiff, ORDER DISCHARGING ORDERS TO

SHOW CAUSE IN WRITING WHY

13 v.

SANCTIONS SHOULD NOT BE IMPOSED

14 SCALIA, et al., FOR FAILURE TO OBEY COURT

ORDERS

15 Defendants. (Docs. 44, 46) 16

ORDER GRANTING REQUEST NUNC

17 PRO TUNC FOR EXTENSION OF TIME

18 (Doc. 45) 19 20 Plaintiff Matthew H. Beckett is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights 21 action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 22 I. RELEVANT BACKGROUND 23 On January 22, 2024, the Court issued its Order Finding Service Appropriate. (Doc. 40.) 24 Specifically, service was to be effected on Defendants B. Hackworth, Hernandez, L. Hurtado, A. 25 Madrigal and J. Scalia. (Id. at 2.) Relevant here, the California Department of Corrections and 26 Rehabilitation (“CDCR”) was directed to file the “CDCR Notice of E-Service Waiver” form 27 within 40 days, advising whether Defendants agreed to…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.