From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Lear v. Navarro

United States District Court, Eastern District of California
Jun 14, 2022
1:21-cv-00600-DAD-BAM (PC) (E.D. Cal. Jun. 14, 2022)

Opinion

1:21-cv-00600-DAD-BAM (PC)

06-14-2022

RODERICK WILLIAM LEAR, Plaintiff, v. NAVARRO, et al., Defendants.

[


AMENDED ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO STAY DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AS MOOT (ECF No. 69)

This order is amended to correct the filing deadline for Defendants' reply brief in support of the pending motion for summary judgment.

BARBARA A. McAULIFFE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Plaintiff Roderick William Lear (“Plaintiff”') is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action proceeds on Plaintiff's first amended complaint against Defendants Navarro, Neve, Allison, and Plata for excessive force in violation of the Eighth Amendment, arising from the incident on January 4, 2020. The Court has ordered electronic service on Defendant Plata.

On May 13, 2022, Defendants Navarro, Neve, and Allison (“Defendants”) filed a motion for summary judgment on the grounds that Plaintiff failed to exhaust his available administrative remedies before filing suit. (ECF No. 65.) On May 20, 2022, Plaintiff filed a motion requesting that the Court stay Defendants' motion for summary until after he receives discovery concerning his use of force appeals. (ECF No. 69.) Defendants did not file an opposition.

On June 10, 2022, Plaintiff filed a notice of resubmission of his opposition to Defendants' motion for summary judgment, together with his opposition to the motion for summary judgment. (ECF Nos. 70, 71.) Plaintiff indicates that he first attempted to send his opposition to the motion for summary judgment on May 25, 2022, but the opposition was returned to him unopened on June 3, 2022. Plaintiff mailed the opposition to the Court again on June 5, 2022. (ECF No. 70.)

As the basis of Plaintiff's motion for the Court to deny or stay Defendants' motion for summary judgment was that he needed additional time to obtain certain documents in order to oppose Defendants' motion for summary judgment, and Plaintiff has now filed his opposition to the motion for summary judgment, the Court finds that the motion is no longer necessary. Plaintiff's opposition will be accepted as timely and Defendants will be permitted to file a reply.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED as follows:

1. Plaintiff's motion requesting that the Court stay Defendants' motion for summary judgment, (ECF No. 69), is DENIED as moot;
2. Plaintiff's opposition to Defendants' motion for summary judgment, (ECF No. 71), is accepted as timely; and
3. Defendants' reply to Plaintiff's opposition, if any, is due within fourteen (14) days of the date of service of this order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.


Summaries of

Lear v. Navarro

United States District Court, Eastern District of California
Jun 14, 2022
1:21-cv-00600-DAD-BAM (PC) (E.D. Cal. Jun. 14, 2022)
Case details for

Lear v. Navarro

Case Details

Full title:RODERICK WILLIAM LEAR, Plaintiff, v. NAVARRO, et al., Defendants.

Court:United States District Court, Eastern District of California

Date published: Jun 14, 2022

Citations

1:21-cv-00600-DAD-BAM (PC) (E.D. Cal. Jun. 14, 2022)