Caver v. Gomez et al

Filing 36

ORDER ADDRESSING 33 Motion for Clarification, signed by Magistrate Judge Sheila K. Oberto on 9/23/2013. (Marrujo, C)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 DENELL CAVER, Plaintiff, 11 Case No. 1:11-cv-01025-AWI-SKO PC ORDER ADDRESSING MOTION FOR CLARIFICATION v. 12 (Doc. 33) 13 E. GOMEZ, et al., 14 Defendants. _____________________________________/ 15 16 Plaintiff Denell Caver, a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed this 17 civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on June 20, 2011. This action is proceeding on 18 Plaintiff’s second amended complaint, filed on April 10, 2012, against Defendants Gomez, Stark, 19 and Garcia for acting with deliberate indifference to Plaintiff’s safety, in violation of the Eighth 20 Amendment. 21 On July 26, 2013, Plaintiff filed a motion seeking clarification regarding the status of 22 Defendants Gomez and Garcia. Defendants Gomez and Stark filed separate answers to the second 23 amended complaint and there is a scheduling order in place. (Docs. 18, 20, 30, 31.) Defendant 24 Garcia has not yet waived service or been personally served. As set forth in a separate order, 25 service was accepted and waived on behalf of the wrong E. Garcia, in error. An order directing 26 service on the correct E. Garcia will be issued. 27 /// 28 /// 1 Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion for clarification is deemed addressed. 2 3 4 5 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: September 23, 2013 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?