King v. Chokatos et al

Filing 29

ORDER in Response to Plaintiff's Notice 28 ; ORDER Vacating Court's Order Issued on June 10, 2014 27 , signed by Magistrate Judge Gary S. Austin on 6/26/14. (Verduzco, M)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

DARRELL WAYNE KING,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14

vs.
JOHN D. CHOKATOS, et al.,

15

Defendants.

1:12-cv-01936-LJO-GSA-PC
ORDER IN RESPONSE TO
PLAINTIFF’S NOTICE
(Doc. 28.)
ORDER VACATING COURT’S
ORDER ISSUED ON JUNE 10, 2014
(Doc. 27.)

16
17
18
19

I.

BACKGROUND

20

Darrell Wayne King (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma

21

pauperis with this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff filed the Complaint

22

commencing this action on November 29, 2012. (Doc. 1.) This case now proceeds on

23

Plaintiff’s initial Complaint against defendants Dr. John Chokatos and LVN Michele Stringer

24

for inadequate medical care in violation of the Eighth Amendment. (Id.)

25

On June 10, 2014, the court issued an order requiring Plaintiff to file a response to

26

Defendants’ motion for summary judgment of April 23, 2014, within thirty days. (Doc. 27.)

27

On June 23, 2014, Plaintiff filed a notice to the court, arguing that he should not be required to

28

comply with the court’s order. (Doc. 28.)
1

1

II.

PLAINTIFF’S NOTICE

2

Plaintiff notifies the court that he believes the court’s order of June 23, 2014 was issued

3

in error, because there is no motion for summary judgment pending. Plaintiff asserts that

4

Defendants filed a request to convert part of their prior motion to dismiss into a motion for

5

summary judgment, but the court denied this request and disregarded their notice of motion for

6

summary judgment as moot. Plaintiff asserts that Defendants never renewed their motion for

7

summary judgment, and he has not been served with any motion for summary judgment.

8

Plaintiff is correct. The court’s order of June 10, 2014 should not have been issued,

9

because there is no pending motion for summary judgment in this case. Plaintiff accurately

10

explains the resolution of Defendants’ notice of motion for summary judgment filed on April

11

23, 2014, and Defendants have not renewed their motion. Therefore, the court shall vacate its

12

order issued on June 10, 2014, and Plaintiff is not required to comply with the order.

13

III.

CONCLUSION

14

Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

15

1.

response to Defendants’ motion for summary judgment, is VACATED; and

16
17

The court’s order issued on June 10, 2014, which required Plaintiff to file a

2.

18

Plaintiff is not required to comply with the court’s order issued on June 10,
2014.

19
20
21
22

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

June 26, 2014

/s/ Gary S. Austin
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

23
24
25
26
27
28
2