(PC) Combs v. Kern Valley State Prison et al
ORDER DENYING Plaintiff's 37 Motion for a Speedy Trial and Deadline Schedules signed by Magistrate Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe on 11/18/2020. (Sant Agata, S)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
DASHAWN WILSON COMBS,
MOORE, et al.,
Case No. 1:19-cv-00390-NONE-BAM (PC)
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION
FOR A SPEEDY TRIAL AND DEADLINE
(ECF No. 37)
Plaintiff Dashawn Wilson Combs (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in
forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action proceeds on
Plaintiff’s first amended complaint against Defendants Moore, Ruelas, Brubaker, Ronquillo, and
Perez for excessive force in violation of the Eighth Amendment and for deliberate indifference to
medical needs in violation of the Eighth Amendment.
On January 16, 2020, Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment on the ground that
Plaintiff failed to exhaust his prisoner administrative remedies as required by the Prisoner
Litigation Reform Act. (ECF No. 23.) After the motion was fully briefed, Defendants filed a
motion for a stay of the discovery and dispositive motion deadlines pending resolution of their
exhaustion motion for summary judgment. (ECF No. 33.) The Court found that a response from
Plaintiff was not necessary, and on July 10, 2020 granted the motion in part and stayed merits-
based discovery and vacated the dispositive motion deadline in this action. (ECF No. 34.)
On November 9, 2020, the undersigned issued findings and recommendations that
Defendants’ motion for summary judgment be granted and permitted the parties to file objections
within fourteen days after service. (ECF No. 36.) Once the objection deadline has expired, the
findings and recommendations will be referred to a District Judge for review.
Currently before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion for a speedy trial and deadline schedules,
filed November 16, 2020. (ECF No. 37.) Plaintiff argues that he did not have an opportunity to
respond to Defendants’ motion to stay the discovery and dispositive motion deadlines in this
action, and he has not waived his rights to a speedy trial in this case. Plaintiff states that the
Court should grant his motion for a speedy trial and deadlines because he has an open criminal
case for resentencing and will have a “severe conflict” trying to attend to the courts without any
documents when he’s out for court on resentencing matters, and he has been having severe mental
stress as a CCCMS mental health patient due to the unknown deadlines in this action.1 (Id.)
To the extent Plaintiff is attempting to invoke Sixth Amendment speedy trial rights, such
rights apply to criminal proceedings and not to civil cases, such as this one. See Los Angeles
County Bar Ass’n v. Eu, 979 F.2d 697, 706–07 (9th Cir. 1992); Lietzke v. City of Montgomery,
No. 12CV0135, 2012 WL 2327708, at *2 (D. Ida. June 19, 2012) (citing 18 U.S.C. § 3161).
Further, Plaintiff’s request to set a trial date and further deadlines is premature. There is currently
a pending motion for summary judgment which may dispose of the entire action. The Court
declines to set a trial date or further deadlines until the current dispositive motion is fully
Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion for a speedy trial and deadline schedules, (ECF No. 37), is
IT IS SO ORDERED.
November 18, 2020
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
The Court notes that Plaintiff’s motion was served on November 10, 2020, and it appears he has not yet received
the Court’s November 9, 2020 findings and recommendations. (ECF No. 37, p. 6.) To the extent Plaintiff believes
he will be unable to file objections to the findings and recommendations before the current deadline, Plaintiff should
file a motion for an extension of the objection deadline which presents good cause for the request.
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?