Garcia v. Beard et al

Filing 60

ORDER DIRECTING Defendant to Respond to Complaint Following Disposition of Motion for Summary Judgment, signed by Magistrate Judge Stanley A. Boone on 8/28/17. Responsive Pleading Due Date: September 8, 2017. (Marrujo, C)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 FELIPE GARCIA, 9 10 Plaintiff, v. 11 J. HOBMEIER, et al., 12 Defendants. 13 ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Case No. 1:14-cv-00625-LJO-SAB (PC) ORDER DIRECTING DEFENDANT TO RESPOND TO COMPLAINT FOLLOWING DISPOSITION OF MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT Responsive Pleading Due Date: September 8, 2017 14 15 Plaintiff Felipe Garcia is appearing pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action 16 pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This case proceeds on Plaintiff’s first amended complaint, filed 17 December 23, 2015, against Defendant Emerson for excessive force, and against Defendants Gaona, 18 Hobmeier, and Wildey for failure to protect. (ECF No. 28.) 19 On August 16, 2016, Defendants filed an ex parte request to file a pre-answer motion for 20 summary judgment. (ECF No. 38.) On August 23, 2016, the Court issued an order granting 21 Defendants’ request, and requiring the motion for summary judgment to be filed within sixty days of 22 the date of service of that order. (ECF No. 39.) 23 On October 19, 2016, Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment for failure to exhaust 24 administrative remedies, which was referred to the undersigned pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) 25 and Local Rule 302. (ECF No. 44.) The parties proceeded to brief the motion for summary judgment. 26 On July 26, 2017, the undersigned recommended that Defendants’ motion be denied. (ECF No. 27 56.) Plaintiff filed objections to the findings and recommendations on August 9, 2017, (ECF No. 57), 28 and Defendants filed objections on August 24, 2017, (ECF No. 58). 1 1 On August 25, 2017, the District Judge adopted the findings and recommendations in full, over 2 the parties’ objections. (ECF No. 59.) The August 25, 2017 order was entered by the Clerk of the 3 Court that same day, and electronic notice was immediately provided to defense counsel, while 4 Plaintiff was served with the order by mail. 5 Defendants’ motion for summary judgment having been disposed of, Defendants are now 6 required to file and serve a responsive pleading to the first amended complaint. See Mann v. Lee, No. 7 C 07-00781 MMC (PR), 2009 WL 5178095, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 22, 2009) (discussing that a motion 8 for summary judgment that adequately contests the action extends the time for a defendant to file a 9 responsive pleading to the complaint until after summary judgment is decided, pursuant to the tolling 10 provisions of Rule 12(a)). Under the relevant provisions of Rule 12(a), a responsive pleading must be 11 served within fourteen days after notice of the Court’s disposition of Defendants’ motion for summary 12 judgment. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(a)(4)(A). Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant file and serve a responsive pleading to 13 14 Plaintiff’s complaint on or before September 8, 2017. 15 16 IT IS SO ORDERED. 17 Dated: 18 August 28, 2017 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2

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?