Randolph v. Nix et al

Filing 106

ORDER DENYING 103 Motion Alerting the Court that Warden Failed to Obey Court Order; ORDER TERMINATING 94 Motion for Summary Judgment ; Order Regarding Withdrawal of Motion for Summary Judgment 104 , signed by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Seng on 02/26/2016. (Martin-Gill, S)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9
10

COLIN M. RANDOLPH,

11
12
13
14
15
16

Plaintiff,
v.
B. NIX, et al.,

CASE NO. 1:12-cv-00392-LJO-MJS (PC)
ORDER DENYING MOTION ALERTING THE
COURT THAT WARDEN FAILED TO OBEY
COURT ORDER
(ECF No. 103)

Defendants.

ORDER REGARDING WITHDRAWAL OF
MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
(ECF No. 104)

17
CLERK TO TERMINATE ECF No. 94
18
19
20

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding in forma pauperis in this civil rights action

21

brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The action proceeds against Defendant Akano on

22

Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment medical indifference claim. (ECF No. 19.)

23

On January 28, 2016, the Court issued an order directing staff at Plaintiff’s

24

institution to facilitate a telephone call between Plaintiff and proposed volunteer counsel.

25

(ECF No. 92.) Apparently, however, on the date of the scheduled call, Plaintiff was

26

transferred to another institution and the call did not occur. (See ECF No. 103.)

27
28

On February 22, 2016, Plaintiff filed a motion seeking to hold the Warden in

1

contempt and requesting a new order to facilitate said call. (ECF No. 103.) This is the

2

second such motion filed by Plaintiff.

3

Since the submission of Plaintiff’s motion, Plaintiff has spoken with the proposed

4

counsel and counsel has been appointed for Plaintiff. (ECF No. 99.) Accordingly,

5

Plaintiff’s motion is moot and will be denied.

6

Counsel also filed a notice of withdrawal of Plaintiff’s motion for summary

7

judgment. (ECF No. 104.) The motion for summary judgment was filed pro se before

8

counsel was appointed. (ECF No. 94.)

9
10

Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. Plaintiff’s motion alerting the Court that the Warden failed to obey a court order

11

(ECF No. 103) is DENIED as moot;

12

2. Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 94) is WITHDRAWN; and

13

3. The Clerk’s Office is directed to terminate ECF No. 94.

14
15
16
17

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

February 26, 2016

/s/

Michael J. Seng

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2