Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_10-cv-00397/USCOURTS-caed-1_10-cv-00397-5/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

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LEONARD RANSOM, JR., 

 Plaintiff,

 vs.

DANIEL GONZALEZ, et al.,

 Defendants.

1:10-cv-00397-GSA-PC

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS’ 

MOTION TO STRIKE AS MOOT

(Doc. 40.)

Leonard Ransom, Jr. (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with this civil 

rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff filed the Complaint commencing this 

action on March 8, 2012. (Doc. 1.) This case now proceeds on the original Complaint, against 

defendants C/O M. Amador, C/O Daniel Nava, C/O R. Marquez, and C/O Ralph Nunez for use 

of excessive force; and against defendants C/O Daniel Nava, C/O R. Marquez, and Lt. Carlos 

Sandoval for failure to protect Plaintiff.1

On April 11, 2013, Defendants filed a motion to strike Plaintiff’s surreply filed on April 

4, 2013. (Doc. 40.) Defendants’ motion is moot. The Court entered an order on April 15, 

 

1 On August 8, 2012, the Court dismissed Plaintiff’s claim regarding his disciplinary process from this 

action for failure to state a claim. (Doc. 17.) The Court also dismissed defendants Daniel Gonzalez and Sergeant 

Ybarra from this action, based on Plaintiff’s failure to state any claims against them. Id. The Court also dismissed 

defendants Saul Ochoa, Harold Tyson, Eric Lunsford, Daniel Gonzalez, and Gina Marquez, without prejudice, on 

Plaintiff’s motion. Id.

Case 1:10-cv-00397-AWI-EPG Document 43 Filed 04/17/13 Page 1 of 2
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

2013, granting Plaintiff’s motion to file the surreply and deeming the surreply properly filed. 

(Doc. 42.)

Accordingly, Defendants’ motion to strike is DENIED as moot.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 16, 2013 /s/ Gary S. Austin 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE DEAC_Signature-END:

6i0kij8d

Case 1:10-cv-00397-AWI-EPG Document 43 Filed 04/17/13 Page 2 of 2