Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-01936/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-01936-3/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

DARRELL WAYNE KING,

 Plaintiff,

 vs.

JOHN D. CHOKATOS, et al.,

 Defendants.

1:12-cv-01936-LJO-GSA-PC

 

ORDER IN RESPONSE TO 

PLAINTIFF’S NOTICE

(Doc. 28.)

ORDER VACATING COURT’S 

ORDER ISSUED ON JUNE 10, 2014

(Doc. 27.)

I. BACKGROUND

Darrell Wayne King (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma 

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

commencing this action on November 29, 2012. (Doc. 1.) This case now proceeds on 

Plaintiff’s initial Complaint against defendants Dr. John Chokatos and LVN Michele Stringer 

for inadequate medical care in violation of the Eighth Amendment. (Id.) 

On June 10, 2014, the court issued an order requiring Plaintiff to file a response to 

Defendants’ motion for summary judgment of April 23, 2014, within thirty days. (Doc. 27.) 

On June 23, 2014, Plaintiff filed a notice to the court, arguing that he should not be required to 

comply with the court’s order. (Doc. 28.)

Case 1:12-cv-01936-LJO-EPG Document 29 Filed 06/26/14 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

II. PLAINTIFF’S NOTICE

Plaintiff notifies the court that he believes the court’s order of June 23, 2014 was issued

in error, because there is no motion for summary judgment pending. Plaintiff asserts that 

Defendants filed a request to convert part of their prior motion to dismiss into a motion for 

summary judgment, but the court denied this request and disregarded their notice of motion for 

summary judgment as moot. Plaintiff asserts that Defendants never renewed their motion for 

summary judgment, and he has not been served with any motion for summary judgment.

Plaintiff is correct. The court’s order of June 10, 2014 should not have been issued, 

because there is no pending motion for summary judgment in this case. Plaintiff accurately 

explains the resolution of Defendants’ notice of motion for summary judgment filed on April 

23, 2014, and Defendants have not renewed their motion. Therefore, the court shall vacate its 

order issued on June 10, 2014, and Plaintiff is not required to comply with the order.

III. CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The court’s order issued on June 10, 2014, which required Plaintiff to file a 

response to Defendants’ motion for summary judgment, is VACATED; and

2. Plaintiff is not required to comply with the court’s order issued on June 10, 

2014.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 26, 2014 /s/ Gary S. Austin 

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:12-cv-01936-LJO-EPG Document 29 Filed 06/26/14 Page 2 of 2