Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_11-cv-02712/USCOURTS-caed-2_11-cv-02712-8/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

CHARLES G. REECE, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

AMRICK BASI, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. 2:11-cv-2712 TLN AC P 

ORDER 

 Due to a docketing error and confusion over which of plaintiff’s claims had survived 

screening, the court vacated the parties’ original cross-motions for summary judgment with leave 

to re-file within sixty days. ECF No. 91. The court received plaintiff’s renewed motion for 

summary judgment against defendant Basi (ECF No. 95), but did not receive a renewed motion 

for summary judgment against defendants Lahey and Villote. Plaintiff was ordered to advise the 

court whether he had filed a renewed motion against Lahey and Villote, and if he had to resubmit 

the motion. ECF No. 101. The court has not yet received plaintiff’s response. However, counsel 

for defendants Lahey and Villote has filed a statement offering clarification regarding the status 

of plaintiff’s renewed motion for summary judgment against them. ECF No. 103. 

 Counsel advises that he was notified by a Deputy Attorney General in the San Francisco 

office that a motion for summary judgment was filed in Reece v. Traquina (hereinafter Traquina), 

2:10-cv-2949 JAM CKD, but was captioned “Charles G. Reece v. Amrick Basi, et al.” ECF No. 

Case 2:11-cv-02712-TLN-AC Document 106 Filed 12/16/15 Page 1 of 2
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

2

103 at 2, ¶¶ 3. The court has reviewed the motion for summary judgment filed in Traquina, and 

notes that captions on the statement of facts and declaration, which are attached at the end of the 

motion, have the case number in this proceeding on them. Traquina ECF No. 57 at 12, 16. It 

appears that plaintiff accidentally placed the wrong case number on the first page of his motion 

and that the motion was intended to be filed in this case. The court will direct the Clerk of the 

Court to file the motion in this case and defendants Lahey and Villote will be required to respond. 

Plaintiff is no longer required to mail another copy of his motion,1 but should ensure future filings 

are labeled with the proper case number and served on appropriate counsel. 

 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 

 1. The Clerk of the Court is directed to file the motion for summary judgment at ECF No. 

57 in Reece v. Traquina, USDC E.D. Cal. Case No. 2:10-cv-2949 JAM CKD, in this case. 

 2. Defendants Lahey and Villote shall have thirty days from the date the Clerk files the 

motion for summary judgment in this case in which to file a response. 

 3. Plaintiff is not required to mail another copy of the motion. 

DATED: December 15, 2015 

 

1

 If plaintiff has already mailed another copy of the motion and it is filed in this case, it will be 

disregarded and defendants Lahey and Villote will not be required to file another response. 

Case 2:11-cv-02712-TLN-AC Document 106 Filed 12/16/15 Page 2 of 2