From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Montgomery v. Brooks

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Jul 16, 2012
No. CIV S-11-3304 GGH P (E.D. Cal. Jul. 16, 2012)

Opinion

No. CIV S-11-3304 GGH P

07-16-2012

KENNETH GENE MONTGOMERY, Plaintiff, v. SGT. BROOKS, et al. Defendants.


ORDER

Plaintiff proceeds in this action with counsel pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On April 19, 2012, the court directed service of plaintiff's amended complaint, and ordered that the defendants file, within 21 days, a motion to dismiss or an answer to the amended complaint. See Doc. No. 16. On April 27, 2012 and on June 6, 2012, defendants filed motions to dismiss, which motions were granted by this court in a separate order. Plaintiff's claims against defendants High Desert State Prison, California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, State of California, Warden McDonald, and Nurse Shaw have been dismissed with prejudice, and the only remaining, non-stayed defendant remaining in this action is defendant Brooks.

A review of the court's docket reflects that defendant Brooks was served with the amended complaint on May 10, 2012. See Doc. No. 25. Accordingly, it is hereby ordered that defendant Brooks respond to the amended complaint within 21 days of the filing date of this order, See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(a), if he is not otherwise dismissed by plaintiff.

Gregory G. Hollows

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
GGH/rb
mont3304.ord(2)


Summaries of

Montgomery v. Brooks

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Jul 16, 2012
No. CIV S-11-3304 GGH P (E.D. Cal. Jul. 16, 2012)
Case details for

Montgomery v. Brooks

Case Details

Full title:KENNETH GENE MONTGOMERY, Plaintiff, v. SGT. BROOKS, et al. Defendants.

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Date published: Jul 16, 2012

Citations

No. CIV S-11-3304 GGH P (E.D. Cal. Jul. 16, 2012)