Hoffman v. Coyle et al

Filing 18

ORDER Regarding Plaintiff's Opposition to Defendant's Ex Parte Application for Leave to File Pre-Answer Motion for Summary Judgment Or Any Other Future Summary Judgment Motion, signed by Magistrate Judge Stanley A. Boone on 9/11/17. (Marrujo, C)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

MARCELLAS HOFFMAN,

11
12
13

Plaintiff,
v.
PRESTON,

14

Defendant.

15
16

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No.: 1:16-cv-01617-SAB (PC)
ORDER REGARDING PLAINTIFF’S
OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT’S EX PARTE
APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO FILE PREANSWER MOTION FOR SUMMARY
JUDGMENT OR ANY OTHER FUTURE
SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION
[ECF Nos. 16, 17]

17

Plaintiff Marcellas Hoffman is a federal prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in

18

this civil action pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics,

19

403 U.S. 388, (1971).

20

On August 30, 2017, the Court issued an order granting Defendant leave to file a pre-answer

21

motion for summary judgment on exhaustion of administrative remedies by October 30, 2017. (ECF

22

No. 15.)

23

On September 6, 2017, Plaintiff filed an “Opposition to Defendant’s Ex Parte Application for

24

Leave to File Pre-Answer Motion for Summary Judgment or Any Other Future Summary Judgment

25

Motion. (ECF No. 16.) On September 8, 2017, Defendant filed a reply to that opposition.

26

To the extent Plaintiff objects to the order granting Defendant leave to file a pre-answer motion

27

for summary judgment, that objection is overruled. Plaintiff has shown no grounds for reconsidering

28

that order.
1

1

Plaintiff’s opposition discusses his contentions that he has properly exhausted his

2

administrative remedies for the claim in this case, and his arguments as to why summary judgment

3

should not be granted in Defendant’s favor. As discussed in Defendant’s reply, Defendant has not yet

4

filed any motion for summary judgment, and no motion is currently pending before the Court. If

5

Defendant files a motion in accordance with the Court’s order, Plaintiff will have an opportunity to

6

oppose it. Plaintiff may also inform the Court at that time whether he chooses to rely on his opposition

7

filed on September 6, 2017, rather than submitting a superseding opposition. Plaintiff should do so by

8

written notice to the Court within the time permitted for filing any opposition to the motion.

9

Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s objection to the order granting leave to

10

Defendant to file a pre-answer motion for summary judgment on exhaustion of administrative

11

remedies is overruled.

12
13

IT IS SO ORDERED.

14

Dated:

15

September 11, 2017
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

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