K'napp v. Adams et al

Filing 148

ORDER REQUESTING Clarification from Defense Counsel within Fifteen Days signed by Magistrate Judge Gary S. Austin on 6/18/2015. (Sant Agata, S)

1
2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

3

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

4
5

ERIC CHARLES RODNEY K’NAPP,

6

Plaintiff,

7
8

vs.

1:06-cv-01701-LJO-GSA-PC
ORDER REQUESTING CLARIFICATION
FROM DEFENSE COUNSEL WITHIN
FIFTEEN DAYS

D. G. ADAMS, et al.,

9

Defendants.

10
11
12

I.

BACKGROUND
Eric Charles Rodney K’napp (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with this

13

civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

14

commencing this action on November 22, 2006. (Doc. 1.) This action now proceeds on the

15

Second Amended Complaint filed by Plaintiff on November 13, 2008, against defendants

16

Warden Derral G. Adams, Lieutenant (“Lt.”) E. Smith, Lt. J. T. Tucker, Associate Warden S.

17

Sherman, and D. Selvy (Classification Services Representative), for retaliating against Plaintiff

18

by confining him in Ad-Seg under false pretenses and transferring him to another prison, and

19

against defendants K. Motty, Sgt. C. Pugliese, Lt. Smith, R. Guerrero, Appeals Coordinator

20

Cooper, Appeals Coordinator V. R. Garcia, Appeals Coordinator R. Hall, and Does 1-5

21

(Mailroom Workers) for interfering with his right to send mail in violation of the First

22

Amendment.1 (ECF No. 16.)

Plaintiff filed the Complaint

23
1

24
25
26
27
28

On March 12, 2012, Plaintiff’s claims for retaliation based on allegations that defendants (1) denied him
indigent correspondence supplies, (2) delayed his mail, (3) obstructed his outgoing mail, (4) denied him all but the
May 2005 issue of his subscription of Prison Legal News, (5) issued a false disciplinary write-up against Plaintiff
for having a clothesline inside his cell, and (6) instructed CDCR personnel at SATF to limit Plaintiff to a sixtyminute non-contact visit with a visitor who had come over 250 miles to see him, were dismissed by the Court
based on Plaintiff’s failure to exhaust remedies before filing suit. (Doc. 88.) The Court also dismissed defendants
Meaders, Cuevas, and Johnson from this action, based on Plaintiff’s failure to exhaust remedies for the claims
against them before filing suit. (Id.) All other claims and defendants, other than those listed above, were
dismissed from this action by the Court on August 17, 2009, based on Plaintiff’s failure to state a claim. (Doc.
29.)
1

1

On October 22, 2014, Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment. (ECF No.

2

136.) On January 15, 2015, Plaintiff filed an opposition to the motion. (ECF No. 147.)

3

Defendants did not file a reply to the opposition. The motion for summary judgment is

4

pending.

5

II.

DISCUSSION

6

The pending motion for summary judgment was filed by ten of the eleven defendants:

7

Adams, Selvy, Pugliese, Smith, Motty, Tucker, Sherman, Hall, Cooper, and Garcia. (ECF No.

8

136 at 1:21-22.) However, defendant Guerrero was not included in the motion.

9

The court requests clarification, within ten days, whether defendant Guerrero was

10

purposely omitted from the motion for summary judgment.

11

III.

CONCLUSION

12

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that within fifteen days from the date of

13

service of this order, defense counsel shall clarify whether defendant Guerrero was purposely

14

omitted from the motion for summary judgment of October 22, 2014.

15
16
17
18

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

June 18, 2015

/s/ Gary S. Austin
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2