Opinion
1:20-cv-01430-ADA-BAM (PC)
07-06-2023
IAN WILSON, Plaintiff, v. TORRES, et al., Defendants.
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR TIMELY RULING ON DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (ECF NO. 42)
BARBARA A. MCAULIFFE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Plaintiff Ian Wilson (“Plaintiff”') is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action proceeds on Plaintiff's first amended complaint for claims of deliberate indifference to serious medical needs in violation of the Eighth Amendment against Defendants Longia and Patel for allegedly cancelling an approved surgery in October 2019, and against Defendant Toor for allegedly not providing medication to Plaintiff on August 15, 2019.
Pending before the Court is Defendants' motion for summary judgment on the ground that Plaintiff failed to adequately and completely exhaust an available administrative remedy with respect to the allegations asserted in this action. (ECF No. 33.) The motion is fully briefed. (ECF Nos. 38, 39, 40.)
Currently before the Court is Plaintiff's motion for a timely ruling on Defendants' motion for summary judgment, filed July 5, 2023. (ECF No. 42.) Plaintiff argues that the case has been stagnant and dormant, causing prejudice to him as documents are lost, memories fade, and witnesses become unavailable. Plaintiff further notes that the California Constitution, Article VI, section 19 indicates that a judge shall issue a timely decision and sets a deadline of ninety days after the matter is submitted for decision, and that a judge may not receive a salary while any cause before the judge remains pending and undetermined for 90 days after it has been submitted for decision. Plaintiff therefore requests a ruling on Defendants' summary judgment motion. (Id.)
Defendants have not yet had an opportunity to respond to the motion, but the Court finds a response unnecessary. The motion is deemed submitted. Local Rule 230(1).
Plaintiff is reminded that this Court has an extremely large number of pro se prisoner civil rights cases pending before it, and therefore, delay is inevitable despite the Court's best efforts. Due to the heavy caseload, Defendants' motion for summary judgment is awaiting decision. The Court is aware of the pendency of this action and will decide the motion for summary judgment in due course. Plaintiff's motion for a ruling is therefore denied.
To the extent Plaintiff cites to the California Constitution for the proposition that this Court must issue decisions on matters within 90 days of their submission for decision, Plaintiff is informed that this provision applies to judges sitting in California state courts, rather than federal courts. The section is therefore inapplicable to this matter.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED as follows:
1. Plaintiff's motion for ruling on Defendants' motion for summary judgment, (ECF No. 42), is DENIED; and
2. Defendants' motion for summary judgment will be decided in due course.
IT IS SO ORDERED.