Kinney v. Brazelton, et al.

Filing 60

ORDER DENYING Plaintiff's 59 Motion to the Court to Respond to Plaintiff's Response, signed by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Seng on 6/20/16. (Marrujo, C)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

DIJON KINNEY,

12
13
14
15

CASE NO. 1:14-cv-00503-AWI-MJS (PC)
Plaintiff,

v.
P.D. BRAZELTON, et al.,

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION
TO THE COURT TO RESPOND TO
PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSE

Defendants.

16
(ECF No. 54)

17
18
19
20

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil

21

rights action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The action proceeds against

22

Defendant Flores on Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment claims for inadequate medical care

23

and cruel and unusual punishment.

24

Before the Court is Plaintiff’s May 23, 2016 “Motion to the Court to Respond to

25

Plaintiff’s Response.” (ECF No. 54.) The motion seeks a ruling on Plaintiff’s request to

26

amend his complaint. (ECF No. 53.) The Court has ruled on the motion to amend. It was

27

denied without prejudice on May 27, 2016. (ECF No. 55.)

28

1
2

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s “Motion to the Court to Respond to Plaintiff’s Response” is
HEREBY DENIED as moot.

3
4
5

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

June 20, 2016

/s/

6

Michael J. Seng

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
2