Nawabi v. Cates et al

Filing 32

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS AND PLAINTIFFS MOTION FOR AN EXTENSION OF TIME AS MOOT re 22 , 25 , 26 , 29 ; DIRECTING THE CLERKS OFFICE TO ISSUE NEW CIVIL CASE DOCUMENTS AND SUMMONSES and REQUIRING COUNSEL TO APPEAR ON DECEMBER 5, 2014 AT 10:00 A.M. signed by Magistrate Judge Stanley A. Boone on 11/6/2014. (Lundstrom, T)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 IDRIS NAWABI, 14 ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS AND PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR AN EXTENSION OF TIME AS MOOT Plaintiff, 12 13 Case No. 1:13-cv-00272-LJO-SAB v. CATES, et al., (ECF Nos. 22, 25, 26, 29) 15 Defendants. ORDER DIRECTING THE CLERK’S OFFICE TO ISSUE NEW CIVIL CASE DOCUMENTS AND SUMMONSES 16 17 ORDER REQUIRING COUNSEL TO APPEAR ON DECEMBER 5, 2014 AT 10:00 A.M. 18 19 20 Plaintiff Idis Nawabi, a former state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, 21 filed this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on February 25, 2013. On October 3, 22 2014, the Defendants in this action filed a motion to dismiss. (ECF No. 22.) At the time the 23 motion to dismiss was filed, Plaintiff was proceeding pro se and the operative complaint was the 24 First Amended Complaint filed on March 6, 2014. (ECF No. 15.) 25 After the motion to dismiss was filed, Raymond P. Boucher was substituted as attorney 26 for Plaintiff. (ECF No. 23.) On October 27, 2014, the parties filed a stipulation permitting 27 Plaintiff to file a Second Amended Complaint. (ECF No. 24.) The same day, Defendants filed 28 an amended motion to dismiss, despite the fact that an amended complaint was forthcoming. 1 1 (ECF No. 25.) Plaintiff also filed a motion for an extension of time to respond to the first motion 2 to dismiss. (ECF No. 26.) 3 On November 4, 2014, Plaintiff filed a Second Amended Complaint. (ECF No. 28.) The 4 same day, Plaintiff filed a second motion for an extension of time to respond to Defendants’ 5 motion to dismiss. (ECF No. 29.) 6 An informal telephonic hearing was held on November 6, 2014, to address the 7 outstanding motion to dismiss and Plaintiff’s motions for an extension of time. Counsel 8 Raymond Boucher appeared for Plaintiff and counsel Stanton Lee appeared for Defendants. The 9 parties agree that since Plaintiff has filed a second amended complaint, the motion to dismiss is 10 moot. Accordingly, the Court shall deny the motion to dismiss without prejudice and the 11 motions for an extension of time. 12 Since Plaintiff was proceeding pro se at the time that this action was filed, the magistrate 13 judge assigned to the case screened the complaint and ordered service on Defendants B. Borges, 14 R. Chapnick, Hancock, and Hartley. (ECF No. 19.) As Plaintiff is now represented by counsel, 15 this action will proceed as a regular civil case. The Court shall direct the Clerk’s Office to issue 16 initial case documents and summonses for those defendants named in the second amended 17 complaint that have not yet been issued. 18 Finally, counsel for Plaintiff shall appear on December 5, 2014, at 10:00 a.m. in 19 Courtroom 9 to discuss the coordination of discovery in the related actions. The parties may 20 appear telephonically. Please contact Mamie Hernandez, Courtroom Clerk, for the 21 teleconference number and access code. 22 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 23 1. Defendants’ motion to dismiss and amended motion to dismiss are DENIED without prejudice; 24 25 2. Plaintiff’s first and second motion for an extension of time are DENIED; 26 3. The Clerk’s Office is DIRECTED to issue summonses to the following 27 Defendants: 28 2 1 EDMUND G. BROWN, JR. 2 JEFFREY BEARD 3 4. The Clerk’s Office is directed to issue initial new case documents; and 4 5. The United States Marshal is DIRECTED to serve a copy of the complaint, summons, and this order upon the defendants if requested by the plaintiff. 5 6 7 IT IS SO ORDERED. 8 Dated: November 6, 2014 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 3

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?