Cassano v. Johnson et al

Filing 79

ORDER RE 73 DEFENDANTS ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO CLARIFY CLAIMS.(whalc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/9/2015)

1
2
3
4

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
6
7
8

GARY CASSANO,

9

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

12

Plaintiff,
v.
M. JOHNSON,

ORDER RE DEFENDANT’S
ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO
CLARIFY CLAIMS

Defendant.
/

13
14

No. C 12-05144 WHA

Defendant M. Johnson has filed an administrative motion requesting clarification as to

15

the causes of action upon which plaintiff is entitled to proceed, in order to properly address

16

whether to file a dispositive motion. Defendant asserts that it is unclear whether the complaint

17

alleged sufficient facts to pursue a claim for deliberate indifference to safety. It has already been

18

held that the complaint’s allegations “are sufficient to state a cognizable claim against

19

defendants for using excessive force and being deliberately indifferent to [plaintiff’s] safety”

20

(Dkt. No. 6 at 2)(emphasis added). Moreover, defendant has already answered the complaint

21

(Dkt. No. 65). He could have filed a motion to dismiss the complaint at that time if he thought it

22

failed to state a claim. The parties are now in the midst of discovery. If defendant wishes to

23

submit a motion for summary judgment, he is free to do so.

24
25

IT IS SO ORDERED.

26
27
28

Dated: March 9, 2015.

WILLIAM ALSUP
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE