Lacy v. Tyson et al

Filing 157

ORDER in Response to 155 & 156 Motions signed by Magistrate Judge Gary S. Austin on 5/16/2015. (Lundstrom, T)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

GARY ANDRE LACY

8

Plaintiff,

9
10

1:07-cv-00381-LJO-GSA-PC
ORDER IN RESPONSE TO MOTIONS
(Docs. 155, 156.)

vs.
H. TYSON, et al.,

11

Defendants.

12
13

I.

BACKGROUND

14

Gary Andre Lacy ("Plaintiff") is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with this civil rights

15

action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. ' 1983. Plaintiff filed the Complaint commencing this action on

16

March 9, 2007. (Doc. 1.) This action now proceeds on the Second Amended Complaint, filed

17

on April 28, 2009, against defendants Correctional Officer (C/O) T. Reyna, C/O N. Correa,

18

Sergeant J. Peacock, Sergeant M. Bremnar, Sergeant M. Brookwalter, Captain H. Tyson,

19

Medical Technician Assistant Aspeitia-Fleming, and Doctor I. Patel, (collectively,

20

“Defendants”) on Plaintiff's claims for excessive force, retaliation, and deliberate indifference

21

to serious medical needs, based on events beginning in January 2006.1

22

On June 29, 2012, Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment. (Doc. 121.) On

23

July 16, 2012, Plaintiff filed a motion to defer the court’s ruling on the motion for summary

24

judgment pending resolution of Plaintiff’s motion to compel. (Doc. 124.) On August 23, 2012,

25
26
1

27
28

Defendants Dill and Heanacho were dismissed by the Court on August 27, 2009. (Doc. 17.) Plaintiff's
claims for equal protection, and for retaliation against defendant Dill, were also dismissed by the Court, for failure
to state a claim. Id. On November 5, 2012, the court dismissed defendant R. Reyna from this action, with
prejudice, due to notice of the defendant’s death. (Doc. 132.)

1

the court granted Plaintiff’s motion to defer the ruling. (Doc. 125.) On February 7, 2013,

2

Plaintiff’s motion to compel was fully resolved.2 (Doc. 148.)

3
4

On November 8, 2012, Plaintiff filed an opposition to the motion for summary
judgment. (Doc. 135.) On December 10, 2012, Defendants filed a reply. (Doc. 144.)
On March 23, 2015, Plaintiff filed a motion to expedite the ruling on Defendants’

5
6

motion for summary judgment, and a motion for a scheduling order.

7

Plaintiff’s motions of March 23, 2015 are now before the court.

8

II.

9

(Docs. 155, 156.)

PLAINTIFF’S MOTIONS
Plaintiff requests an order setting out deadlines in this case, in order to expedite

10

resolution of the pending motion for summary judgment.

11

Defendants’ motion for summary judgment was not reinstated on the court’s calendar following

12

resolution of the motion to compel.3

Plaintiff raises his concerns that

13

Discussion

14

Plaintiff is advised that Defendants’ motion for summary judgment was reinstated on

15

the court’s calendar upon final resolution of Plaintiff’s motion to compel, and the motion is

16

now under consideration.

17

III.

18

CONCLUSION
This order resolves Plaintiff’s motions filed on March 23, 2015.

19
20
21

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

May 16, 2015

/s/ Gary S. Austin
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

22

23
24
25
26
27

2

On February 7, 2013, Defendants filed their supplemental response to Plaintiff’s motion to
compel. (Doc. 148.)
3

28

On August 23, 2012, the court granted Plaintiff’s motion to defer the ruling on the motion for
summary judgment pending resolution of Plaintiff’s motion to compel of December 7, 2011. (Doc. 125.)