Valson v. Kelso et al

Filing 26

ORDER Granting Defendants Twenty-Eight Days to File an Answer or Renew Their Motion to Dismiss Solely on the Issue of Qualified Immunity, signed by Magistrate Judge Erica P. Grosjean on 10/30/17. 28-Day Deadline. (Gonzalez, R)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 10 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 11 12 SILUS M. VALSON, Plaintiff, 13 14 15 v. MATTHEW CATE and MARTIN BITER, Case No. 1:14-cv-01420-DAD-EPG (PC) ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS TWENTY-EIGHT DAYS TO FILE AN ANSWER OR RENEW THEIR MOTION TO DISMISS SOLELY ON THE ISSUE OF QUALIFIED IMMUNITY Defendants. 16 17 18 19 On September 21, 2017, District Judge Dale A. Drozd denied Defendants' motion to 20 dismiss. (ECF No. 22, p. 5). Because the deadline for Defendants to file an answer passed (see 21 Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(a)(4)(A)), and nothing had been filed by either party, the Court directed each 22 party to file a status report. (ECF No. 24). 23 On October 26, 2017, Defendants filed their status report. (ECF No. 25). According to 24 Defendants, Defendants believed that the motion to dismiss was still pending on the issue of 25 qualified immunity. If their motion to dismiss is not still pending, Defendants ask that they be 26 given twenty-eight days to renew their motion to dismiss on qualified immunity grounds or file an 27 answer. 28 While Judge Drozd’s order does not address the defense of qualified immunity, it denied 1 1 Defendants’ motion to dismiss. (ECF No. 22, p. 5). If Defendants still wish to raise qualified 2 immunity as a defense, the parties should address the issue with the benefit of Judge Drozd’s 3 order. 4 Given the above, as well as the apparent confusion regarding whether Defendants’ motion 5 to dismiss was still pending, IT IS ORDERED that Defendants have twenty-eight from the date of 6 service of this order to either renew their motion to dismiss solely on the basis of qualified 7 immunity or file an answer. If Defendants renew their motion to dismiss, Plaintiff has twenty-one 8 days after the date of service of the motion to file his opposition or statement of non-opposition. 9 Local Rule 230(l). Defendants may, “not more than seven (7) days after the opposition has been 10 filed in CM/ECF, serve and file a reply to the opposition.” Id. 11 IT IS SO ORDERED. 12 13 Dated: October 30, 2017 /s/ UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 14 15 16 17 18 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?