Sokolsky v. State of California et al

Filing 57

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Gary S. Austin on 10/27/2016 denying 44 Request for more definitive answer as moot. (Lundstrom, T)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

MARK SOKOLSKY,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14

1:13-cv-02044-LJO-GSA-PC
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S
REQUEST FOR MORE DEFINITIVE
ANSWER AS MOOT
(ECF No. 44.)

vs.
STATE OF CALIFORNIA, et al.,

15

Defendants.

16
17

Plaintiff is a civil detainee proceeding pro se in a civil rights action pursuant to 42

18

U.S.C. ' 1983. This case now proceeds on Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint, filed on

19

February 4, 2016, against defendants Domrese, King, Meek, Porter, and Bonsu for denial of

20

free exercise of religion under the First Amendment and violation of RLUIPA; and defendants

21

Domrese, King, Porter, and Bonsu for violation of due process for conditions of confinement.

22

(ECF No. 44.) On May 31, 2016, Defendants King, Coyne, and Porter filed an Answer to the

23

Second Amended Complaint. (ECF No. 40.)

24

On July 11, 2016, Plaintiff filed a request for the court to compel defendants King,

25

Coyne, and Porter to file a more definitive Answer to the Second Amended Complaint. (ECF

26

No. 44.)

27

Plaintiff’s motion is moot because on July 21, 2016, defendants King, Coyne, Porter,

28

Meek, and Bonsu filed an Amended Answer to the Second Amended Complaint. (ECF No.
1

1

46.) Because the Amended Answer supercedes the prior Answer filed on May 31, 2016,

2

Plaintiff’s request for Defendants to update the prior Answer is moot and shall be denied as

3

such. Fed. R. Civ. P. 15; Local Rule 220.

4
5

Accordingly, based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s
request for a more definitive answer, filed on July 11, 2016, is DENIED as moot.

6
7
8
9

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

October 27, 2016

/s/ Gary S. Austin
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2