Jackson v. Pletcher et al

Filing 53

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman on 11/07/11 ordering that within 14 days of the date of this order, defendants Cate, Osman, Jolley, Dunlap, Sabin and Warhover shall file a reply to the complaint. (Plummer, M)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 RAYMOND D. JACKSON, 11 12 13 14 Plaintiff, vs. STEVEN FLETCHER, et al., Defendants. 15 16 No. 2: 11-cv-1157 JAM KJN P ORDER / On August 3, 2011, defendants Cate, Osman, Jolley, Dunlap, Sabin and Warhover 17 filed a waiver of reply pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(g). This section provides, 18 (1) Any defendant may waive the right to reply to any action brought by a prisoner confined in any jail, prison, or other correctional facility under section 1983 of this title or any other Federal law. Notwithstanding any other law or rule of procedure, such waiver shall not constitute an admission of the allegations contained in the complaint. No relief shall be granted to the plaintiff unless a reply has been filed. 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 (2) The court may require any defendant to reply to a complaint brought under this section if it finds that the plaintiff has a reasonable opportunity to prevail on the merits. 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(g). In the waiver of reply, defendants state that they intend to file a dispositive motion within the time ordered by the court. 1 1 By ordering service of the complaint on defendants, the undersigned found that 2 plaintiff had a reasonable opportunity to prevail on the merits. Accordingly, defendants are 3 ordered to file a reply to the complaint within fourteen days of the date of this order. 42 U.S.C. § 4 1997e(g)(2). 5 The undersigned also notes that in the waiver of reply, defendants state that they 6 intend to file a dispositive motion within the time ordered by the court. The waiver of reply does 7 not address the issue of discovery and the likelihood that plaintiff would file a motion for 8 discovery pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(d) were defendants to file a dispositive 9 motion. Under these circumstances, the waiver of reply does not promote the efficient resolution 10 of this action. 11 On August 9, 2009, defendant Pletcher filed a waiver of reply. On October 19, 12 2011 defendant Pletcher filed a summary judgment motion. Because defendant Pletcher filed a 13 summary judgment motion, he is not ordered to file a reply to the complaint. 14 15 Plaintiff has not filed a motion for appointment of counsel. Were plaintiff to file such a motion, the court would seriously consider such a request. 16 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that within fourteen days of the date of 17 this order, defendants Cate, Osman, Jolley, Dunlap, Sabin and Warhover shall file a reply to the 18 complaint. 19 DATED: November 7, 2011 20 21 _____________________________________ KENDALL J. NEWMAN UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 22 23 jack1157.ord(2) 24 25 26 2

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?