Palacios v. Beard et al

Filing 18

ORDER DENYING 15 Request to Stay Responsive Pleading Deadline and Directing Defendants to File Responsive Pleading Within Ten (10) Days signed by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Seng on 1/23/2017. (Jessen, A)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

10

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

11
12

FRANCISCO PALACIOS,

13
14
15
16

Plaintiff,
v.
JEFFREY BEARD, et al.,
Defendants.

Case No.: 1:16-cv-00634-MJS (PC)
ORDER DENYING REQUEST TO STAY
RESPONSIVE PLEADING DEADLINE AND
DIRECTING DEFENDANTS TO FILE
RESPONSIVE PLEADING
(ECF No. 15)
TEN (10) DAY DEADLINE

17
18
19
20

Plaintiff Francisco Palacios, a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma

21 pauperis, filed this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on May 5, 2016. (ECF
22 No. 1.) Plaintiff has consented to Magistrate Judge jurisdiction. (ECF No. 5.)
23

On August 24, 2016, the Court screened Plaintiff’s complaint pursuant to 28

24 U.S.C. § 1915A and found that it stated an Eighth Amendment claim against Defendant
25 Ybarra for excessive force and a First Amendment retaliation claim against Defendants
26 Ybarra and Stark. (ECF No. 6). On December 13, 2016, Defendants waived service; they
27 were directed to file an answer on or before January 6, 2017.
28

On January 5, 2017, Defendants moved for a fourteen day extension of time to file

1 a motion for summary judgment on exhaustion grounds and requested to stay their
2 responsive pleading pending the outcome of their motion. (ECF No. 12.) On January 20,
3 2017, Defendants filed a motion for summary judgement. (ECF No. 14.) They also
4 renewed their request to stay their responsive pleading pending the outcome of their
5 motion. (ECF No. 15.)
6

While Defendants are certainly free to file a motion for summary judgment at any

7 time “until 30 days after the close of all discovery,” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(b), such a motion
8 does not absolve Defendants of their responsibility to respond to Plaintiff’s complaint.
9 See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b). The obligation to file an answer is not particularly onerous.
10 Furthermore, an initial review of Defendants’ summary judgment motion indicates that
11 there may be disputed issues of fact necessitating an evidentiary hearing, rendering the
12 requested stay lengthy if granted. The Court does not see that the interests of judicial
13 economy will be served by staying the responsive pleading deadline at this time.
14

. Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that Defendants’ request to stay the

15 responsive pleading deadline is DENIED. However, Defendants will be granted ten (10)
16 days from the date of this order to file their answer.
17
18
19
20

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

January 23, 2017

/s/

Michael J. Seng

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2