Huskey v. Ahlin et al

Filing 28

ORDER Directing Defendant to File an Answer to Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint's Claim as to Defendant Lasley signed by Magistrate Judge Jennifer L. Thurston on 12/13/2011. (Flores, E)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

KENNETH ROBERT HUSKEY,

12
13
14
15

Case No. 1:09-cv-01576 AWI JLT (PC)

Plaintiff,
ORDER DIRECTING DEFENDANT TO FILE
AN ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF’S FIRST
AMENDED COMPLAINT’S CLAIM AS TO
DEFENDANT LASLEY

vs.
PAM AHLIN, et al.,
Defendants.

16

/

17

Plaintiff is a civil detainee prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with a civil rights

18

action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On March 29, 2010, Plaintiff filed his First Amended Complaint.

19

(Doc. 8.) By order filed January 3, 2011, the Court adopted the findings and recommendation which

20

recommended certain claims be dismissed but allowed Plaintiff to proceed on his Fourteenth

21

Amendment claims and associated state law claims as to Defendants Lasley and Pham. (Doc. 12.) On

22

June 3, 2011, Defendants filed a motion to dismiss. (Doc 21.) On June 27, 2011, Plaintiff filed his

23

opposition. (Doc. 22.)

24

On November 21, 2011, the Court granted Defendant’s motions to dismiss as to Defendant

25

Pham, but provided Plaintiff with leave to file a second amended complaint or alternatively proceed only

26

as to his claims against Defendant Lasley. (Doc. 25.) On December 9, 2009, Plaintiff notified the Court

27

that he wished to proceed only on the claim as to Defendant Lasley found cognizable by the Court’s

28
1

1

November 21, 2011 order.1 (Doc. 27.) Thus, this action will proceed only on Plaintiff’s claim against

2

Defendant Lasley.

3
4

Accordingly, Defendant is HEREBY ORDERED to answer Plaintiff’s First Amended
Complaint’s claim as to Defendant Lasley, within 20 days of the date of this order.

5
6

IT IS SO ORDERED.

7

Dated: December 13, 2011
9j7khi

/s/ Jennifer L. Thurston
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

1

The Court notes its November 21, 2011 Order had misspelled Defendant Kyle Lasley last name as “Laskey.” (Doc.
25 at 1.) Plaintiff notice that he intended to proceed as to the claim against Defendant Lasley, (at Doc. 27), similarly
misspelled Defendant Lasley’s last name. Nevertheless, it is clear that Plaintiff intends to proceed only as to his claim as to
Defendant Lasley. (Doc. 27.)

2