Ransom v. Gonzalez et al

Filing 44

CORRECTED ORDER Denying Defendants' Motion to Strike as Moot 27 , signed by Magistrate Judge Gary S. Austin on 4/17/13. (Verduzco, M)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

8
9
10

13

CORRECTED ORDER1 DENYING
DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO STRIKE AS
MOOT
(Doc. 40.)

Plaintiff,

11
12

1:10-cv-00397-GSA-PC

LEONARD RANSOM, JR.,

vs.
DANIEL GONZALEZ, et al.,
Defendants.

14
15
16

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

17

rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff filed the Complaint commencing this
18
19
20
21

action on March 8, 2012. (Doc. 1.) This case now proceeds on the original Complaint, against
defendants C/O M. Amador, C/O Daniel Nava, C/O R. Marquez, and C/O Ralph Nunez for use
of excessive force; and against defendants C/O Daniel Nava, C/O R. Marquez, Sgt. J. Ybarra,
and Lt. Carlos Sandoval for failure to protect Plaintiff.2

22
23
1

24
25
26
27
28

The order is corrected to reflect the reinstatement of defendant Sergeant Ybarra in this action on
October 3, 2012.
2

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. On October 3, 2012, defendant Sergeant Ybarra was reinstated as a defendant, under Fed.
R. Civ. P. 60. (Doc. 22.) Service of process upon defendant Ybarra has been commenced but is not yet
completed. (Doc. 24.)
1

On April 11, 2013, Defendants filed a motion to strike Plaintiff’s surreply filed on April

1
2

4, 2013. (Doc. 40.) Defendants’ motion is moot. The Court entered an order on April 15,

3

2013, granting Plaintiff’s motion to file the surreply and deeming the surreply properly filed.

4

(Doc. 42.)
Accordingly, Defendants’ motion to strike is DENIED as moot.

5
6
7
8
9

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

10
11
12

April 17, 2013

/s/ Gary S. Austin
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

DEAC_Signature-END:

6i0kij8d

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