Dasenbrock v. Kings County et al

Filing 184

ORDER regarding 183 Motion Request for Clarification signed by Magistrate Judge Dennis L. Beck on 7/6/2016. (Lundstrom, T)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

8
9
10
11

ROBIN DASENBROOK,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14

vs.
A. ENENMOH, et al.,

15

Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No.: 1:11-cv-01884 DAD DLB PC
ORDER REGARDING DEFENDANTS’
REQUEST FOR CLARIFICATION
[ECF No. 183]

16

Plaintiff Robin Dasenbrook (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in

17
18

forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1983. This action is proceeding

19

against Defendants Enenmoh, Page, Perez, and Adair for claims of negligence and deliberate

20

indifference to a serious medical need in violation of the Eighth Amendment.

21
22
23

On September 11, 2013, the Court issued a Discovery and Scheduling Order. At the
time, not all Defendants had appeared in this action. On May 9, 2014, Defendants Enenmoh and
Page filed a motion for summary judgment. Plaintiff filed an opposition on June 12, 2014, and

24

Defendants filed a reply on July 14, 2014. On September 17, 2014, in light of the re-opening of
25
26
27

discovery as to additional defendants, the Court dismissed the motion without prejudice to refiling.

28

1

1
2
3
4
5

On June 24, 2016, the Court issued a second Discovery and Scheduling Order concerning
the two additional Defendants, Adair and Perez.
On July 1, 2016, Defendants Enenmoh and Page filed a request for clarification regarding
their motion for summary judgment that had been previously dismissed. Defendants ask that in
the interest of judicial economy the Court to reinstate their motion for summary judgment now

6

that the issue of unidentified defendants has been resolved. Good cause appearing therefore,
7
8

Defendant’s motion for summary judgment will be reinstated.
ORDER

9
10

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendants’ motion is GRANTED, and

11

the motion for summary judgment dated May 9, 2014, is REINSTATED along with Plaintiff’s

12

opposition and Defendants’ reply. The deadlines set forth in the second Discovery and

13

Scheduling Order of June 24, 2016, concerning Defendants Adair and Perez remain the same.

14
15
16
17

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

/s/ Dennis

July 6, 2016

L. Beck

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

2