Huckabee v. Medical Staff at CSATF et al

Filing 98

ORDER DENYING AS MOOT 90 Motion to Correction of Filing Date, signed by Magistrate Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe on 12/19/2013. (Martin-Gill, S)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

ANTHONY CRAIG HUCKABEE,

12
13
14
15
16
17

Plaintiff,
v.
MEDICAL STAFF at CSATF, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No.: 1:09-cv-00749-LJO-BAM (PC)
ORDER DENYING APPLICATION FOR RELIEF
PURSUANT TO FED. R. CIV. P, RULE 60;
CORRECTION OF FILING DATE AS MOOT
(ECF No. 90)

Plaintiff Anthony Craig Huckabee (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner, currently proceeding pro se,

18

in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action proceeds on Plaintiff’s second

19

amended complaint, filed on August 21, 2012, by Plaintiff’s then appointed voluntary counsel, for (1)

20

deliberate indifference to a serious medical need in violation of the Eighth Amendment against

21

Defendants Diaz, McGuiness, Wu, Bhatt, Nguyen, Garcia, Jimenez, Jeffreys, Chief Medical Officer at

22

CSATF, and Chief Pharmacist at CSATF; (2) negligence against Defendants Diaz, Jeffreys, and

23

Jimenez; (3) medical malpractice against Defendants McGuiness, Wu, Bhatt and Nguyen; (4) violation

24

of the Unruh Civil Rights Act, California Civil Code § 51, against all defendants; and (5) negligent

25

infliction of emotional distress against all defendants.

26
27

On August 21, 2013, the undersigned issued Findings and Recommendations that the motion to
dismiss filed by Defendants Diaz, Wu, Bhatt and Nguyen be granted in part and denied in part. The

28
1

1

Findings and Recommendations included a finding that April 29, 2009, was the operative filing date of

2

this action for purposes of the statute of limitations.

3

On September 30, 2013, following issuance of the Findings and Recommendations, Plaintiff

4

filed the instant motion for relief pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) to correct the

5

operative filing date of his complaint to April 23, 2009. (ECF No. 90.) Defendants did not respond to

6

the motion.

7

Subsequently, Plaintiff filed objections to the Findings and Recommendations on October 17,

8

2013. In his objections, Plaintiff argued that the effective filing date should be April 23, 2009, the

9

date he delivered his original complaint to prison officials for processing. Plaintiff incorporated by

10

reference his arguments from the instant motion for Rule 60 relief. (ECF No. 94, pp. 4-5 and n. 2.)

11

On December 10, 2013, the District Court sustained Plaintiff’s objection regarding the

12

operative filing date, relying on Plaintiff’s incorporated arguments from the instant motion. As such,

13

the District Court adopted an effective filing date of April 23, 2009. (ECF No. 96, pp. 2-3.)

14

Based on the District Court’s order, the instant motion is no longer necessary for the purpose

15

of correcting the effective filing date. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion for relief pursuant to Federal

16

Rule of Civil Procedure 60 is DENIED as moot.

17

IT IS SO ORDERED.

18
19

Dated:

/s/ Barbara

December 19, 2013

A. McAuliffe

_

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2