(PC) Torres v. Quick et al
Filing
79
ORDER VACATING 73 Findings and Recommendations Recommending that this Action be Dismissed for Failure to Prosecute and Comply with a Court Order and ORDER for Defendant Ontiveros to File Status Reports and ORDER for Additional Briefing Related to S tay, signed by Magistrate Judge Erica P. Grosjean on 11/26/2024. Plaintiff's claims against Defendant Ontiveros are STAYED. See 11 U.S.C. § 362. Defendant Ontiveros shall file a status report within ninety days of the date of thi s order, and every ninety days thereafter, to advise the Court of the status of the bankruptcy proceedings. Within 14 days of this order, all parties shall file a response as to whether the claims against other Defendants should be stayed as well. (Rivera, O)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
EDWARD TORRES,
12
Plaintiff,
13
14
v.
JAYSON QUICK, et al.,
DEFENDANTS.
15
Case No. 1:22-cv-01536-KES-EPG (PC)
ORDER VACATING FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS RECOMMENDING
THAT THIS ACTION BE DISMISSED FOR
FAILURE TO PROSECUTE AND COMPLY
WITH A COURT ORDER (ECF No. 73)
AND
16
ORDER FOR DEFENDANT ONTIVEROS TO
FILE STATUS REPORTS
17
AND
18
ORDER FOR ADDITIONAL BRIEFING
RELATED TO STAY
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Plaintiff Edward Torres is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights
action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
On July 11, 2024, the Court issued a revised screening order (ECF No. 62),1 which
required Plaintiff’s response within 30 days. This order was returned to the Court as
undeliverable, and Plaintiff did not respond to it. The Court later re-served this screening order
extended that deadline until September 23, 2024. After the extended deadline to respond to the
1
The Court issued the revised screening order to reflect that—based on the new information in
Defendant Ontiveros’s scheduling statement—Plaintiff’s claims against Defendants should proceed under
the Fourteenth Amendment legal standards for pretrial detainees awaiting adjudication of criminal charges,
rather than the Eighth Amendment legal standards for individuals who are confined after being convicted
of a crime. (ECF No. 62 at 2).
1
1
Court’s Revised Screening Order has passed and Plaintiff still did not respond, on October 8,
2
2024, the Court issued Findings and Recommendations recommending that this case be dismissed
3
4
5
6
for failure to prosecute and follow Court’s orders. (ECF No. 73).
Since then, Plaintiff filed objections to the Findings and Recommendations (ECF No. 77)
and has responded to the revised screening order, electing to proceed on his cognizable claims.
(ECF No. 76). Plaintiff also timely opposed Motion for Summary Judgment. (ECF No. 74).
Accordingly, the Court will VACATE the findings and recommendations recommending
7
that this case be dismissed issued on October 8, 2024. (ECF No. 73). Consistent with its
8
9
10
11
Screening Order and Plaintiff’s notice to proceed on his cognizable claims, the case will proceed
on Plaintiff’s Fourteenth Amendment excessive force claims against Defendants Quick, Garza,
Garcia, Valadez, Prince, and Martinez; his Fourteenth Amendment failure to protect claims
against Defendants Quick, Garza, Garcia, Valadez, Prince, and Martinez; and his Fourteenth
12
Amendment claim against Defendant Ontiveros for deliberate indifference subject to his serious
13
medical needs. All other claims and defendants have already been dismissed from this action
14
following the first screening order. (ECF No. 22).
15
In addition, a notice of bankruptcy was filed November 19, 2024, on behalf of Defendant
16
Eva Ontiveros. (ECF No. 78.) At this time, and until further notice, Plaintiff’s claims against
17
Defendant Ontiveros are STAYED. See 11 U.S.C. § 362. Defendant Ontiveros shall file a status
18
report within ninety days of the date of this order, and every ninety days thereafter, to advise the
19
Court of the status of the bankruptcy proceedings.
20
21
22
23
24
Finally, within 14 days of this order all parties shall file a response as to whether the
claims against other Defendants should be stayed as well.
Based on the foregoing, IT IS ORDERED that:
1. The Court’s findings and recommendations recommending that this case be dismissed
for failure to prosecute and follow Court’s orders issued on October 8, 2024 (ECF No.
73) are VACATED.
25
2. Plaintiff’s claims against Defendant Ontiveros are STAYED. See 11 U.S.C. § 362.
26
27
28
2
1
3. Defendant Ontiveros shall file a status report within ninety days of the date of this
2
order, and every ninety days thereafter, to advise the Court of the status of the
bankruptcy proceedings.
3
4
4. Within 14 days of this order, all parties shall file a response as to whether the claims
against other Defendants should be stayed as well.
5
6
5. Plaintiff is advised of his continuing duty under the Local Rules to keep the Court
informed of his current address. L.R. 182(f) (“Each appearing attorney and pro se
7
party is under a continuing duty to notify the Clerk and all other parties of any change
8
of address or telephone number of the attorney or the pro se party. Absent such notice,
9
service of documents at the prior address of the attorney or pro se party shall be fully
10
effective.”); L.R. 183(b) (“A party appearing in propria persona shall keep the Court
11
and opposing parties advised as to his or her current address. If mail directed to a
12
plaintiff in propria persona by the Clerk is returned by the U.S. Postal Service, and if
13
such plaintiff fails to notify the Court and opposing parties within sixty-three (63) days
14
thereafter of a current address, the Court may dismiss the action without prejudice for
15
failure to prosecute.”). Failure to comply with this order may result in dismissal of
16
this action.
17
18
19
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:
November 26, 2024
/s/
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3
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?