Carroll v. Yates et al

Filing 65

ORDER DISCHARGING 59 Order to Show Cause and EXTENDING Application of 42 Discovery and Scheduling Order to Defendant Soto; ORDER GRANTING Plaintiff Thirty Days Within Which to Respond to 62 Request for Substitution of T. Soto aka T. Brown for E. Soto aka J. Masuta, signed by Magistrate Judge Sheila K. Oberto on 6/5/2012. (Filing Deadline: 7/9/2012.) (Marrujo, C)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

8
ARVIE B. CARROLL,

CASE NO. 1:10-cv-00623-LJO-SKO PC

9
Plaintiff,

ORDER DISCHARGING ORDER TO SHOW
CAUSE AND EXTENDING APPLICATION
OF DISCOVERY AND SCHEDULING ORDER
TO DEFENDANT SOTO

10
v.
11
JAMES A. YATES, et al.,
12

(Docs. 42 and 59)
Defendants.

13

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF THIRTY
DAYS WITHIN WHICH TO RESPOND TO
REQUEST FOR SUBSTITUTION OF T. SOTO
AKA T. BROWN FOR E. SOTO AKA J.
MASUTA

14
15
16

(Doc. 62)
/

17
18

Plaintiff Arvie B. Carroll, a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed this

19

civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on April 9, 2010. On May 30, 2012, the Court

20

ordered Defendant Soto to show cause why default should not be entered against her for failing to

21

file a timely response to Plaintiff’s complaint after waiving service of the summons and complaint.

22

Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(d), 12(a)(1)(A)(ii), 55(a).

23

On June 4, 2012, Jamilah Masuta aka Esther Soto, a licensed vocational nurse, filed a

24

response stating that she mistakenly signed the waiver and that Toni Brown aka Toni Soto, a

25

phlebotomist or specialized lab technician, is the correct defendant in this case. Concurrently, J.

26

Masuta aka E. Soto filed a request to substitute T. Brown aka T. Soto in her place.

27

Based on this response, the order to show cause is discharged, and application of the

28

discovery and scheduling order filed on February 2, 2012, is extended to T. Soto, who concurrently
1

1

filed an answer complaint. Plaintiff has thirty days from the date of service of this order to file a

2

response, if any, to E. Soto’s request to formally substitute T. Soto as the correct defendant in this

3

action. If no objection is filed, the substitution will be granted in light of the fact that Plaintiff

4

clearly identifies Soto as a lab technician in his complaint.1

5

Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

6

1.

The order to show cause, filed on May 30, 2012, is DISCHARGED in its entirety;

7

2.

Application of the discovery and scheduling order, filed on February 2, 2012, is

8

extended to T. Soto; and

9

3.

10

Plaintiff has thirty (30) days from the date of service of this order within which to
file a response, if any, to E. Soto’s request to substitute T. Soto as the proper party.

11
12
13
14

IT IS SO ORDERED.

15

Dated:
ie14hj

June 5, 2012

/s/ Sheila K. Oberto
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

1

Plaintiff did not provide a first name or first initial for Soto.

2