Rivers v. King et al

Filing 38

ORDER Disregarding Plaintiff's Statement of Non-Opposition to Defendants' Request to Defer Considering Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment as Moot 37 , signed by Magistrate Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe on 6/16/17. (Hellings, J)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

STEVE RIVERS,

12
13
14
15

Case No. 1:15-cv-00276-LJO-BAM (PC)
Plaintiff,

v.
JAGSIR SANDHU, et al.,
Defendants.

ORDER DISREGARDING PLAINTIFF’S
STATEMENT OF NON-OPPOSITION TO
DEFENDANTS’ REQUEST TO DEFER
CONSIDERING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR
SUMMARY JUDGMENT AS MOOT
(ECF No. 37)

16
17

Plaintiff Steve Rivers (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma

18

pauperis in this civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action proceeds on Plaintiff’s

19

second amended complaint against Defendants Nguyen, Sandhu, and Lopez for violations of the

20

Fourteenth Amendment in connection with Plaintiff’s February 2013 infection. (ECF No. 14.)

21

On March 15, 2017, Defendants filed a request for an extension of time to file dispositive

22

motions and to re-open discovery for the limited purpose of deposing Plaintiff. (ECF No. 30.)

23

The Court granted the motion, setting the new deadline for dispositive motions and discovery for

24

July 14, 2017. (ECF No. 33.) On April 24, 2017, Plaintiff filed a motion for summary judgment.

25

(ECF No. 34.) On April 25, 2017, Defendants filed a request for the Court to defer considering

26

Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment. (ECF No. 35.) Finding good cause to modify the

27

briefing schedule, and that Plaintiff would not be prejudiced by the requested extension of time,

28

the Court granted Defendants’ motion. (ECF No. 36.)
1

1

On June 14, 2016, Plaintiff filed the instant statement of non-opposition to Defendants’

2

request to defer considering Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment. (ECF No. 37.) As the

3

Court has already granted Defendants’ request, Plaintiff’s statement of non-opposition is moot.

4

In his statement of non-opposition, Plaintiff further seeks clarification regarding

5

Defendants’ prior substitution of counsel. The Court notes that on March 15, 2017, Defendants

6

filed a notice of change in designation of counsel for service to Deputy Attorney General Oliver

7

Lewis and a request to terminate Deputy Attorney General Kevin Reager from the service list.

8

(ECF No. 29.) Oliver Lewis is now the attorney of record for Defendants, and therefore it was

9

appropriate for Deputy Attorney General Lewis to file Defendants’ request.

10

Accordingly, the Court HEREBY DISREGARDS Plaintiff’s statement of non-opposition

11

to the order granting Defendants’ request to defer considering Plaintiff’s motion for summary

12

judgment.

13
14
15

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

/s/ Barbara

June 16, 2017

A. McAuliffe

_

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

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