Opinion
1:07-cv-00381-LJO-GSA-PC
05-16-2015
GARY ANDRE LACY Plaintiff, v. H. TYSON, et al., Defendants.
ORDER IN RESPONSE TO MOTIONS (Docs. 155, 156.)
I. BACKGROUND
Gary Andre Lacy ("Plaintiff") is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff filed the Complaint commencing this action on March 9, 2007. (Doc. 1.) This action now proceeds on the Second Amended Complaint, filed on April 28, 2009, against defendants Correctional Officer (C/O) T. Reyna, C/O N. Correa, Sergeant J. Peacock, Sergeant M. Bremnar, Sergeant M. Brookwalter, Captain H. Tyson, Medical Technician Assistant Aspeitia-Fleming, and Doctor I. Patel, (collectively, "Defendants") on Plaintiff's claims for excessive force, retaliation, and deliberate indifference to serious medical needs, based on events beginning in January 2006.
Defendants Dill and Heanacho were dismissed by the Court on August 27, 2009. (Doc. 17.) Plaintiff's claims for equal protection, and for retaliation against defendant Dill, were also dismissed by the Court, for failure to state a claim. Id. On November 5, 2012, the court dismissed defendant R. Reyna from this action, with prejudice, due to notice of the defendant's death. (Doc. 132.)
On June 29, 2012, Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment. (Doc. 121.) On July 16, 2012, Plaintiff filed a motion to defer the court's ruling on the motion for summary judgment pending resolution of Plaintiff's motion to compel. (Doc. 124.) On August 23, 2012, the court granted Plaintiff's motion to defer the ruling. (Doc. 125.) On February 7, 2013, Plaintiff's motion to compel was fully resolved. (Doc. 148.)
On February 7, 2013, Defendants filed their supplemental response to Plaintiff's motion to compel. (Doc. 148.)
On November 8, 2012, Plaintiff filed an opposition to the motion for summary judgment. (Doc. 135.) On December 10, 2012, Defendants filed a reply. (Doc. 144.)
On March 23, 2015, Plaintiff filed a motion to expedite the ruling on Defendants' motion for summary judgment, and a motion for a scheduling order. (Docs. 155, 156.) Plaintiff's motions of March 23, 2015 are now before the court.
II. PLAINTIFF'S MOTIONS
Plaintiff requests an order setting out deadlines in this case, in order to expedite resolution of the pending motion for summary judgment. Plaintiff raises his concerns that Defendants' motion for summary judgment was not reinstated on the court's calendar following resolution of the motion to compel.
On August 23, 2012, the court granted Plaintiff's motion to defer the ruling on the motion for summary judgment pending resolution of Plaintiff's motion to compel of December 7, 2011. (Doc. 125.)
--------
Discussion
Plaintiff is advised that Defendants' motion for summary judgment was reinstated on the court's calendar upon final resolution of Plaintiff's motion to compel, and the motion is now under consideration.
III. CONCLUSION
This order resolves Plaintiff's motions filed on March 23, 2015. IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: May 16 , 2015
/s/ Gary S. Austin
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE