Gonzales v. Ferrso, et al.

Filing 35

ORDER Directing Response from Defendants signed by Magistrate Judge Erica P. Grosjean on 08/29/2017. (Flores, E)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27

ORDER DIRECTING RESPONSE FROM
DEFENDANTS

Plaintiff,

12
13

Case No. 1:16-cv-01813-EPG (PC)

MICHAEL GONZALES,

v.
FERRSO et al,
Defendants.
Michael Gonzales (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma
pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The Court screened Plaintiff’s
civil rights complaint on March 10, 2017 and found that the complaint states a claim for forcible
medication in violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment against
Defendants Garcia, Brosman, B. Zavala, Herrick, Tacara, Franklin, Rodriguez, Escalante and
Davis. (ECF No. 14). The Court also found that Plaintiff did not state any other claim based on
the grievance process. (Id.)
On July 5, 2017, Defendants Brosman, Davis, Escalante, Garcia, Herrick, Rodriguez,
Tacara, and B. Zavala filed a motion to dismiss. (ECF No. 25). In the motion, Defendants ask
the Court to dismiss both the due process claim that the claim found cognizable on March 10,
2017, and Plaintiff’s claim related to grievance procedure that the Court found was not
cognizable in the screening order. The motion to dismiss also makes no mention of the Court’s

28

1

1 screening order, which evaluated Plaintiff’s complaint under the same legal standard as a Rule
2 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss.
3

Because Defendants are asking the Court to dismiss at least one claim that it has already

4 found non-cognizable, it appears to the Court that Defendants may not have had the benefit of
5 the Court’s March 10, 2017 screening order when they drafted the motion to dismiss.
6

Accordingly, the Court ORDERS as follows:

7

1. Defendants are directed to review the Court’s March 10, 2017 screening order. (ECF
No. 14).

8
9

2. Defendants are directed to file a response to this order within 7 days indicating

10

whether they still intend to proceed on the motion to dismiss (ECF No. 25), or

11

alternatively whether they withdraw that motion.

12
13
14

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

August 29, 2017

/s/
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

2