Sotelo v. Birring, et al.

Filing 92

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Sheila K. Oberto on 5/11/2012 vacating hearing date re 89 Motion to Dismiss; requiring Defendants to file a reply and denying 90 Motion for Telephonic Appearance as moot. (Lundstrom, T)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
8
9

ROBERTO A. SOTELO,

10

Plaintiff,

11
12

CASE NO. 1:08-cv-01342-LJO-SKO
ORDER VACATING HEARING DATE,
REQUIRING DEFENDANTS TO FILE A
REPLY, AND DENYING MOTION FOR
TELEPHONIC APPEARANCE AS MOOT

v.
T. BIRRING, et al.,

(Docs. 89 and 90)
13

Defendants.
/

14
15

Plaintiff Roberto A. Sotelo, a state prisoner proceeding in forma pauperis, filed this civil

16

rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on September 10, 2008. This action is currently

17

proceeding on Plaintiff’s second amended complaint, filed on March 22, 2012, against Defendants

18

Birring, Das, Diep, Coleman, and Green for acting with deliberate indifference to Plaintiff’s medical

19

needs, in violation of the Eighth Amendment of the United States Constitution.

20

On April 20, 2012, Defendants Birring, Das, Diep, and Coleman filed a motion to dismiss

21

for failure to comply with the statute of limitation, which is set for a hearing on May 23, 2012, at

22

9:30 a.m. before the undersigned.1 Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). Plaintiff filed an opposition on May 9,

23

2012.

24

Having considered the filings to date, the Court finds that a hearing on the motion to dismiss

25

is unnecessary. Defendants are required to file a reply to Plaintiff’s opposition, and the motion shall

26

be submitted upon the record following receipt of the reply. Local Rule 230(g).

27
1

28

Service of process has been initiated on Defendant Green, but he has not yet made an appearance in the
action. (Doc. 87.)

1

1

Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

2

1.

The hearing set for May 23, 2012, at 9:30 a.m. is vacated;

3

2.

Defendants are required to file a reply;

4

3.

Following the filing of the reply, the motion shall be submitted upon the record; and

5

4.

Defendants’ motion to appear for the hearing by telephone is denied as moot.

6
7

IT IS SO ORDERED.

8

Dated:
i0d3h8

May 11, 2012

/s/ Sheila K. Oberto
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2