Ransom v. Gonzalez et al

Filing 42

ORDER GRANTING Plaintiff's Request to File Supplemental Opposition to Defendants' Motion to Revoke In Forma Pauperis Status 36 THIRTY DAY DEADLINE for Defendants to File Reply to Supplemental Opposition, if They So Wish, signed by Magistrate Judge Gary S. Austin on 4/13/13. (Hellings, J)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9
10
11

14

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S
REQUEST TO FILE SUPPLEMENTAL
OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’
MOTION TO REVOKE IN FORMA
PAUPERIS STATUS
(Doc. 36.)

Plaintiff,

12
13

1:10-cv-00397-GSA-PC

LEONARD RANSOM, JR.,

vs.
DANIEL GONZALEZ, et al.,

15

THIRTY DAY DEADLINE FOR
DEFENDANTS TO FILE REPLY TO
SUPPLEMENTAL OPPOSITION, IF THEY
SO WISH

Defendants.

16
17
18
19

Leonard Ransom, Jr., (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with this civil

20

rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff filed the Complaint commencing this

21

action on March 8, 2012. (Doc. 1.) This case now proceeds on the original Complaint, against

22

defendants C/O M. Amador, C/O Daniel Nava, C/O R. Marquez, and C/O Ralph Nunez for use

23

of excessive force; and against defendants C/O Daniel Nava, C/O R. Marquez, and Lt. Carlos

24

Sandoval for failure to protect Plaintiff.1

25
26
1

27
28

On August 8, 2012, the Court dismissed Plaintiff’s claim regarding his disciplinary process from this
action for failure to state a claim. (Doc. 17.) The Court also dismissed defendants Daniel Gonzalez and Sergeant
Ybarra from this action, based on Plaintiff’s failure to state any claims against them. Id. The Court also dismissed
defendants Saul Ochoa, Harold Tyson, Eric Lunsford, Daniel Gonzalez, and Gina Marquez, without prejudice, on
Plaintiff’s motion. Id.
1

1

On April 4, 2013, Plaintiff filed a request to file a supplemental opposition to

2

Defendants’ motion to revoke Plaintiff’s in forma pauperis status. (Doc. 36.) Plaintiff seeks

3

leave to add further argument in support of the opposition he filed on February 21, 2013.

4

Plaintiff submitted his proposed supplemental opposition, which was filed by the Clerk on

5

April 4, 2013. (Doc. 37.)

6

Good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

7

1.

8

Plaintiff’s request to file a supplemental opposition to Defendants’ motion to

revoke Plaintiff’s in forma pauperis status is GRANTED nunc pro tunc;

9

2.

10

filed; and

11

3.

Plaintiff’s supplemental opposition, filed on April 4, 2013, is deemed properly

12

Within thirty days of the date of service of this order, Defendants may file a

reply to Plaintiff’s supplemental opposition, if they so wish.

13
14
15

IT IS SO ORDERED.

16

Dated:

17
18

April 13, 2013

/s/

Gary S. Austin
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
DEAC_Signature-END:

19

6i0kij8d
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

2