Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-01896/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-01896-12/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 Tyrone Thompson is appearing pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action 

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 

Now pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s request for a court order “stating that he is allowed 

to proceed against Defendant Martinez,” filed January 4, 2016 (ECF No. 56 at 2.)

This action is proceeding against Defendants Martinez and Vidaurri for deliberate indifference 

to a serious medical need in violation of the Eighth Amendment. 

On June 2, 2015, Defendant Vidurria filed an answer to the complaint, and Defendant Martinez 

filed a motion to dismiss. (ECF Nos. 14, 15.) On June 3, 2015, the Court issued the discovery and 

scheduling order. (ECF No. 16.) 

On November 17, 2015, the Court denied Defendant Martinez’s motion to dismiss, and 

Defendant Martinez filed an answer to the complaint on December 16, 2015. (ECF Nos. 47, 54.) On 

TYRONE THOMPSON,

 Plaintiff,

v.

VIDURRIA, et al.,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 1:14-cv-01896-LJO-SAB (PC)

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST 

FOR COURT ORDER AS UNNECESSARY 

[ECF No. 56]

Case 1:14-cv-01896-LJO-SAB Document 57 Filed 01/05/16 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

December 17, 2015, the Court extended the discovery and scheduling order to Defendant Martinez and 

extended the dispositive motion deadlines as to both Defendants. (ECF No. 55.) 

Plaintiff is advised that because Defendant Martinez’s motion to dismiss the claims against 

him was denied, this action is proceeding against Defendant Martinez as well as Defendant Vidurria 

and a further court order is unnecessary. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion for a court order is DENIED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 5, 2016 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:14-cv-01896-LJO-SAB Document 57 Filed 01/05/16 Page 2 of 2