Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_11-cv-01297/USCOURTS-caed-1_11-cv-01297-3/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

Plaintiff Michael Vincent Cisneros (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in 

forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The Court screened Plaintiff’s 

complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, and found that it stated an Eighth Amendment claim against 

Defendant Neubarth for deliberate indifference to Plaintiff’s medical needs. On October 6, 2012, the 

Court directed the United States Marshal to serve Defendant Neubarth with the complaint. (ECF No. 

16.) 

On May 10, 2013, while service of the complaint was pending, Plaintiff filed the instant 

motion requesting that this action proceed or that the Court grant summary judgment based on 

Defendant Neubarth’s failure to answer. (ECF No. 17.) Thereafter, on August 1, 2013, defense 

counsel appeared in this action and requested an extension of time to file a responsive pleading. (ECF 

No. 18.) To date, no return of service has been filed by the United States Marshal. 

MICHAEL VINCENT CISNEROS,

 Plaintiff,

v.

J. NEUBARTH,

Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 1:11-cv-01297-LJO-BAM PC

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO 

PROCEED/SUMMARY JUDGMENT

(ECF No. 17)

Case 1:11-cv-01297-LJO-BAM Document 20 Filed 08/02/13 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

Based on defense counsel’s appearance and request for an extension of time to respond to the 

complaint, the Court finds that Plaintiff’s motion to proceed is no longer necessary and shall be denied 

as moot. The action will proceed once Defendant Neubarth has an opportunity to respond to the 

complaint. 

With regard to summary judgment, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56 contemplates that, prior 

to filing a motion for summary judgment, the opposing party should have a sufficient opportunity to 

discover information essential to its position. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(d); see also Anderson v. Liberty 

Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 250 (1986). In other words, the case must be sufficiently advanced in 

terms of pretrial discovery for the summary judgment target to know what evidence likely can be 

mustered and be afforded a reasonable opportunity to present such evidence. Portsmouth Square, Inc., 

v. Shareholders Protective Comm., 770 F.2d 866, 869 (9th Cir.1985). Until such time as Defendant

has had the opportunity to conduct discovery, Plaintiff’s motion is premature. Once Defendant has

filed an answer, a discovery order will be entered, and a deadline for the filing of dispositive motions 

will be set.

Based on the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED as follows:

1. Plaintiff’s motion to proceed is DENIED AS MOOT; and

2. Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment is DENIED AS PREMATURE. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 2, 2013 /s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe _

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:11-cv-01297-LJO-BAM Document 20 Filed 08/02/13 Page 2 of 2