Garbarini v. Ulit et al

Filing 49

ORDER Granting 37 Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to File an Amended Complaint and Denying 19 Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment as Moot, signed by District Judge Anthony W. Ishii on 9/30/15. (Gonzalez, R)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

RALPH GARBARINI,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14
15

v.
WAYNE ULIT, et al.,
Defendants.

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No.: 1:14-cv-01058-AWI-SAB (PC)
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION
FOR LEAVE TO FILE AN AMENDED
COMPLAINT, AND DENYING PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AS
MOOT
[Docs. 19, 37, 45]

Plaintiff Ralph Garbarini is appearing pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
This action is proceeding against Defendants Wang, Ulit, Moon, and Smith on Plaintiff’s claim
of deliberate indifference to a serious medical need.
On March 30, 2015, Plaintiff filed a motion for summary judgment and the Court ordered
Defendants to oppose the motion on or before July 16, 2015. Doc. 36.
On July 6, 2015, Plaintiff filed a motion for leave to amend the complaint. Doc. 37.

24

Defendants do not oppose Plaintiff’s request to amend the complaint. Doc. 42. However, Defendants

25

request that Plaintiff’s pending motion for summary judgment be vacated because (1): an amended

26

complaint supersedes the original complaint and the motion for summary judgment is based on the

27

original complaint; (2) Plaintiff recently filed an interlocutory appeal; and (3) if amendment is granted,

28

the Court must screen the amended complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. Id.
1

1

In light of Defendants’ notice of non-opposition, the Court finds no prejudice to the opposing

2

party in allowing the amendment. Thus, Plaintiff’s motion to amend the complaint shall be granted

3

and the Court will direct the Clerk to file the amended complaint, lodged on July 6, 2015. Doc. 38.

4

Consequently, Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment based on the original complaint is now moot

5

and shall be denied. Plaintiff’s amended complaint will be screened by the assigned magistrate judge

6

in due course. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A.

7

Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

8

1.

Plaintiff’s motion for leave to file an amended complaint (Doc. 37) is GRANTED;

9

2.

The Clerk of Court is directed to file the amended complaint lodged on July 6, 2015
(Doc. 38); and

10
11

3.

Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment (Doc. 19) is DENIED as MOOT.

12
13

IT IS SO ORDERED.

14

Dated: September 30, 2015

15

SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2