Baptiste v. Dunn et al

Filing 78

ORDER granting 75 Motion for leave to file a supplemental opposition. Plaintiff's supplemental opposition 76 is deemed properly filed and will be considered in ruling on the motion to dismiss of defendants Acquaviva, Callegari, Dunn, Felker, Leo and Simpson; and defendants Acquaviva, Callegari, Dunn, Felker, Leo and Simpson may file a reply to plaintiff's supplemental opposition within 7 days of the date of this order if they wish to do so. (Plummer, M)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

KENNETH E. BAPTISTE

11

Plaintiff,

Defendant.

12

ORDER

vs.

13

No. 2:08-cv-1420 KJM CKD P

G. DUNN

14
15
16

/
Plaintiff, a state prisoner, proceeds pro se with a first amended civil rights

17

complaint filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff’s first amended complaint states claims

18

against eight defendants for deliberate indifference to serious dental needs in the treatment of

19

plaintiff’s dental condition and in the alleged delay of providing him with dentures. Defendants

20

Christe and Hopson moved to dismiss the first amended complaint on June 29, 2012 (Dkt. No.

21

59) and defendants Acquaviva, Callegari, Dunn, Felker, Leo, and Simpson moved to dismiss the

22

first amended complaint on July 27, 2012 (Dkt. No. 69).

23

Plaintiff filed an opposition to the pending motions to dismiss on September 10,

24

2012. On November 21, 2012, plaintiff moved for leave to file a supplemental opposition to the

25

motion to dismiss at docket 69. Defendants oppose the request, stating that it is both untimely

26

and without merit. Good cause appearing, the court will grant petitioner’s request and consider
1

1

his supplemental opposition filed on November 21, 2012 when ruling on the motion to dismiss at

2

docket 69. Defendants Acquaviva, Callegari, Dunn, Felker, Leo, and Simpson will be allowed

3

an opportunity to file a supplemental reply, if they wish.

4

In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:

5

1. Plaintiff’s motion for leave to file a supplemental opposition (Dkt. No. 75) is

6

GRANTED;

7

2. Plaintiff’s supplemental opposition (Dkt. No. 76) is deemed properly filed and

8

will be considered in ruling on the motion to dismiss of defendants Acquaviva, Callegari, Dunn,

9

Felker, Leo, and Simpson; and

10

3. Defendants Acquaviva, Callegari, Dunn, Felker, Leo, and Simpson may file a

11

reply to plaintiff’s supplemental opposition within 7 days of the date of this order if they wish to

12

do so.

13

Dated: December 10, 2012

14

_____________________________________
CAROLYN K. DELANEY
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

15
16
17
18

8
bapt1420.suppopp

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
2