Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_11-cv-01884/USCOURTS-caed-1_11-cv-01884-26/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

ROBIN DASENBROOK,

Plaintiff,

vs.

A. ENENMOH, et al.,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 1:11-cv-01884 DAD DLB PC

ORDER REGARDING PLAINTIFF’S

MOTIONS FOR CLARIFICATION

AND/OR RECONSIDERATION

[ECF No. 186, 187]

Plaintiff Robin Dasenbrook (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in 

forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1983. This action is proceeding 

against Defendants Enenmoh, Page, Perez, and Adair for claims of negligence and deliberate 

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

On September 11, 2013, the Court issued a Discovery and Scheduling Order. At the 

time, not all Defendants had appeared in this action. On May 9, 2014, Defendants Enenmoh and 

Page filed a motion for summary judgment. Plaintiff filed an opposition on June 12, 2014, and 

Defendants filed a reply on July 14, 2014. On September 17, 2014, in light of the re-opening of 

discovery as to additional defendants, the Court dismissed the motion without prejudice to refiling. In light of the confusion and Plaintiff’s attempts to supplement his opposition, it was 

Case 1:11-cv-01884-DAD-GSA Document 188 Filed 07/22/16 Page 1 of 3
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

stated that Plaintiff would be given an opportunity to file a full and complete opposition once 

Defendants Enenmoh and Page’s motion for summary judgment was re-filed.

On July 1, 2016, Defendants Enenmoh and Page filed a request for clarification regarding 

their motion for summary judgment that had been previously dismissed. Defendants asked that 

in the interest of judicial economy the Court to reinstate their motion for summary judgment now 

that the issue of unidentified defendants had been resolved. On July 6, 2016, the Court granted 

the motion and reinstated their motion for summary judgment.

On July 20, 2016, Plaintiff filed two motions for clarification and/or reconsideration 

concerning the Court’s reinstatement of the motion for summary judgment. Plaintiff states the 

Court did not address whether Plaintiff would be allowed to file a full and complete opposition 

as stated in the Court’s September 17, 2014, order. Good cause having been presented, 

Plaintiff’s motion is GRANTED. Plaintiff will be granted thirty (30) days to file an opposition 

to Defendants Enenmoh and Page’s motion for summary judgment. Plaintiff is advised that the 

opposition will supersede the previous opposition filed as well as the supplements thereto. See

ECF Nos. 79, 85, 88. Given the filing of a new opposition, Defendants Enenmoh and Page will 

be granted thirty (30) days from the date of service of Plaintiff’s opposition to file a reply. Said 

reply will supersede the reply previously filed. See ECF No. 90. If Defendants so choose, they 

may file instead a request to reinstate the July 14, 2014, reply.

ORDER

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:

1) Plaintiff’s motions for clarification and/or reconsideration are GRANTED;

2) Plaintiff is GRANTED thirty (30) days from the date of service of this order to file an 

opposition to Defendants Enenmoh and Page’s May 9, 2014, motion for summary 

judgment; and

3) Defendants Enenmoh and Page are GRANTED thirty (30) days from the date of 

service of Plaintiff’s opposition to file a reply, or a request to reinstate the July 14, 

Case 1:11-cv-01884-DAD-GSA Document 188 Filed 07/22/16 Page 2 of 3
3

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

2014, reply. The deadlines set forth in the second Discovery and Scheduling Order of 

June 24, 2016, concerning Defendants Adair and Perez remain the same.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 22, 2016 /s/ Dennis L. Beck 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:11-cv-01884-DAD-GSA Document 188 Filed 07/22/16 Page 3 of 3