Rushdan v. Hamkar et al

Filing 80

STIPULATION and ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Carolyn K. Delaney on 8/27/2014 and agreed between the parties to EXTEND the time for defendants to file their response to the first amended complaint. Defendants Hamkar, Ali, Nangalama, Tharratt, Thoche and Beard shall file their response no later than 9/30/2014. (Yin, K)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12

KAMALA D. HARRIS, State Bar No. 146672
Attorney General of California
TRACY S. HENDRICKSON, State Bar No. 155081
Supervising Deputy Attorney General
RUSSA M. BOYD, State Bar No. 239380
Deputy Attorney General
1300 I Street, Suite 125
P.O. Box 944255
Sacramento, CA 94244-2550
Telephone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
E-mail: [e-mail]
Attorneys for Defendants
Hamkar, Tharratt, Toche, Nangalama, Beard, and
Ali
Manmeet Toor (SBN 278741)
SIKH ALLIANCE
917 13th Street
Modesto, CA 95354
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
E-Mail: [e-mail]
E-Mail: [e-mail]

13
14

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

15

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

16

SACRAMENTO DIVISION

17
18
19

ROBERT STANLEY WOODS aka SALADIN
RUSHDAN ,

STIPULATION AND ORDER EXTENDING
Plaintiff, TIME TO RESPOND TO PLAINTIFF’S
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

20
21

2:12-cv-0562 MCE CKD P

v.

22
HAMKAR, et al. ,
23
Defendants.
24
25
26

Plaintiff, a state prisoner, brings this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

27

Plaintiff was appointed counsel in December 2013. (ECF No. 60.) Thereafter, Plaintiff filed a

28

First Amended Complaint (FAC). (ECF Nos. 65 & 70.) On June 27, 2014, after screening the
1

1

FAC, the Court issued an order identifying the claims and Defendants against whom the FAC

2

shall proceed. (ECF No. 71). In its order, the Court found that the FAC stated a claim for

3

deliberate indifference to a serious medical need in violation of the Eighth Amendment against

4

Defendants Hamkar, Ali, and Nangalama - Defendants who had been served with Plaintiff’s

5

original Complaint and had appeared before the Court. (Id. at 3:2-5.) The Court also found that

6

the FAC stated a cognizable claim for breach of contract under California law against Defendants

7

Beard, Toche, Tharratt, and Kelso – Defendants who were not previously parties to this lawsuit.

8

(Id. at 6:25-7:12.)

9

To date, Defendants Beard, Tharratt, and Toche have been served with the FAC and are

10

required to respond to the FAC no later than September 30, 2014. Defendant Kelso has not yet

11

been served. Pursuant to Local Rule 144, and by agreement between counsel for Plaintiff and

12

Defendants, the parties stipulate to extend the time by which Defendants Hamkar, Ali, and

13

Nangalama shall file their response to the FAC. Defendants Hamkar, Ali, Nangalama, Tharratt,

14

Thoche, and Beard shall collectively file their response to the FAC no later than September 30,

15

2014.

16
17

SO STIPULATED.
Dated: August 25, 2014

KAMALA D. HARRIS
Attorney General of California
TRACY S. HENDRICKSON
Supervising Deputy Attorney General

18
19
20

/s/ Russa M. Boyd

21

RUSSA M. BOYD
Deputy Attorney General
Attorneys for Defendants
Hamkar, Tharratt, Toche, Nangalama,
Beard, and Ali

22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2

1

/s/ Manmeet Toor

Manmeet Toor, Esq.
Sikh Alliance
917 13th Street
Modesto, CA 95354
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
E-Mail: [e-mail]
E-Mail: [e-mail]

2
3
4
5
6

Attorney for Plaintiff, Saladin Rushdan
(Pro Bono)

7
8
IT IS SO ORDERED.
9
10
11
12

Dated: August 27, 2014

_____________________________________
CAROLYN K. DELANEY
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3