Dasenbrock v. Kings County et al

Filing 188

ORDER REGARDING Plaintiff's 186 187 Motions for Clarification and/or Reconsideration signed by Magistrate Judge Dennis L. Beck on 7/22/2016. (Sant Agata, S)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

8
9
10
11

ROBIN DASENBROOK,

12
13
14
15

Plaintiff,
vs.
A. ENENMOH, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No.: 1:11-cv-01884 DAD DLB PC
ORDER REGARDING PLAINTIFF’S
MOTIONS FOR CLARIFICATION
AND/OR RECONSIDERATION
[ECF No. 186, 187]

16
17

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

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. In light of the confusion and Plaintiff’s attempts to supplement his opposition, it was

28

1

1

stated that Plaintiff would be given an opportunity to file a full and complete opposition once

2

Defendants Enenmoh and Page’s motion for summary judgment was re-filed.

3
4
5

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 asked that
in the interest of judicial economy the Court to reinstate their motion for summary judgment now

6

that the issue of unidentified defendants had been resolved. On July 6, 2016, the Court granted
7
8
9
10

the motion and reinstated their motion for summary judgment.
On July 20, 2016, Plaintiff filed two motions for clarification and/or reconsideration
concerning the Court’s reinstatement of the motion for summary judgment. Plaintiff states the

11

Court did not address whether Plaintiff would be allowed to file a full and complete opposition

12

as stated in the Court’s September 17, 2014, order. Good cause having been presented,

13

Plaintiff’s motion is GRANTED. Plaintiff will be granted thirty (30) days to file an opposition

14

to Defendants Enenmoh and Page’s motion for summary judgment. Plaintiff is advised that the

15

opposition will supersede the previous opposition filed as well as the supplements thereto. See

16

ECF Nos. 79, 85, 88. Given the filing of a new opposition, Defendants Enenmoh and Page will

17

be granted thirty (30) days from the date of service of Plaintiff’s opposition to file a reply. Said

18
19

reply will supersede the reply previously filed. See ECF No. 90. If Defendants so choose, they
may file instead a request to reinstate the July 14, 2014, reply.

20

ORDER
21
22
23
24

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:
1) Plaintiff’s motions for clarification and/or reconsideration are GRANTED;
2) Plaintiff is GRANTED thirty (30) days from the date of service of this order to file an

25

opposition to Defendants Enenmoh and Page’s May 9, 2014, motion for summary

26

judgment; and

27
28

3) Defendants Enenmoh and Page are GRANTED thirty (30) days from the date of
service of Plaintiff’s opposition to file a reply, or a request to reinstate the July 14,

2

1

2014, reply. The deadlines set forth in the second Discovery and Scheduling Order of

2

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

3
4
5
6

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

/s/ Dennis

July 22, 2016

L. Beck

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

3