Opinion
22-CV-548 TWR (AHG)
05-24-2023
MONA SALCIDA MURILLO, Plaintiff, v. A. RAMOS, Correctional Officer; URBANO, Correctional Officer; COWART, Correctional Sergeant ADA; BANUELOS, Correctional Sergeant EOP/ADA; WARDEN, Richard J. Donovan Correctional Facility, CDCR; CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND REHABILITATION, Defendant.
ORDER DENYING AS MOOT (1) DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR PARTIAL DISMISSAL OF PLAINTIFF'S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT, (2) PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR COURT ENTRY OF DEFAULT BY ALL DEFENDANTS, AND (3) PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR COURT ORDER ORDERING DEFENDANTS AND THE ATTORNEY GENERAL TO RESPOND TO COMPLAINT (ECF NOS. 46, 47, 55)
Honorable Todd W. Robinson United States District Court
Presently before the Court are several motions filed both by Plaintiff Mona Salcida Murillo and Defendants A. Ramos, Correctional Officer; Urbano, Correctional Officer; Cowart, Correctional Sergeant ADA; Banuelos, Correctional Sergeant EOP/ADA; Warden, Richard J. Donovan Correctional Facility; and the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation: (1) Defendants' Motion for Partial Dismissal of Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint (ECF No. 46 (“Mot. to Dismiss”)); (2) Plaintiff's Motion for Court Entry of Default by All Defendants (F.R.C.P. 55(b)(2)) (ECF No. 47); and (3) Plaintiff's Motion for Court Order Ordering Defendants and the Attorney General to Respond to Complaint (ECF No. 55) (together with ECF No. 47, “Pl.'s Mots.”). The Court also recognizes that Plaintiff has filed several additional motions docketed at ECF Nos. 32, 50, and 51 that are pending before the Honorable Allison H. Goddard and will be resolved through separate order and/or at the Case Management Conference set for May 24, 2023, at 1:30 p.m. (See ECF No. 56.)
In light of Defendants' filing of their Motion to Dismiss, the Court DENIES AS MOOT Plaintiff's Motions (ECF Nos. 47, 55). Further, as agreed by the Parties, (see ECF Nos. 60, 63), Plaintiff's subsequent filing of a Second Amended Complaint, (see ECF No. 57), renders Defendants' Motion to Dismiss moot. The Court therefore also DENIES AS MOOT Defendants' Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 46). Accordingly, Defendants SHALL RESPOND to Plaintiff's operative Second Amended Complaint in accordance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(a)(4)(A).
IT IS SO ORDERED.