Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_11-cv-00444/USCOURTS-caed-1_11-cv-00444-16/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

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

KEVIN DARNELL BRYANT,

Plaintiff,

v.

DR. SHAEFER, et al.,

Defendants.

_____________________________________/

Case No. 1:11-cv-00444-AWI-SKO PC

ORDER STRIKING DUPLICATIVE 

MOTION, STRIKING NOTICE OF 

JOINDER, AND PERMITTING 

DEFENDANT KELDGORD TEN DAYS 

WITHIN WHICH TO FILE A NOTICE OF 

JOINDER IN MOTION TO DISMISS FILED 

ON MARCH 20, 2013

(Docs. 85 and 86)

Plaintiff Kevin Darnell Bryant, a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, 

filed this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on March 17, 2011. This action is 

proceeding on Plaintiff’s amended complaint against Defendants Schaefer, Lopez, Keldgord, 

Harrington, and Flynn arising out of the policy and practice of crushing and floating Gabapentin 

and Tramadol, which led to internal injury to Plaintiff. Plaintiff alleges a claim for violation of his 

rights under the Eighth Amendment of the United States Constitution.

There is an evidentiary hearing set in this matter for June 19, 2014, on Defendants 

Schaefer, Lopez, Harrington, and Flynn’s motion to dismiss, filed on March 20, 2013.1 42 U.S.C. 

 

1 An evidentiary hearing is required in light of the dispute between the parties regarding whether Plaintiff failed to 

exhaust or whether Plaintiff falls within an exception to the exhaustion requirement, as resolution of that dispute is 

dependent upon an assessment of witness credibility. Morton v. Hall, 599 F.3d 942, 945 (9th Cir. 2010); Wyatt v. 

Terhune, 315 F.3d 1108, 1119-20 (9th Cir. 2003). 

Case 1:11-cv-00444-AWI-SKO Document 88 Filed 03/10/14 Page 1 of 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

2

§ 1997e(a); Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b). As the Court’s orders have made clear, briefing on the motion 

is complete and no further briefing will be permitted.

On March 6, 2014, Defendants Keldgord, Harrington, and Flynn re-noticed their motion to 

dismiss in its entirety based on Defendant Keldgord’s recent waiver of service. Defendant Lopez 

then filed a notice of joinder.

Defendant Keldgord may file a notice of joinder in the motion filed on March 20, 2013, 

but Defendants will not be permitted to file an identical motion to dismiss under the guise of “renoticing” a still-pending motion. Plaintiff is proceeding pro se and re-noticing a still-pending

motion in its entirety is suggestive that filing another opposition is also appropriate. This is 

incorrect. The Court will not entertain additional filings with respect to the pending to 

motion dismiss. Given that the motion filed on March 6, 2014, is identical in content to the 

motion filed on March 20, 2013, it is unnecessary and serves only to further confuse the record in 

this case. 

Accordingly, the motion and the notice of joinder filed on March 6, 2014, are HEREBY 

STRICKEN from the record; and Defendant Kelgord has ten (10) days from the date of service of 

this order to file a notice of joinder in the motion to dismiss filed on March 20, 2013.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 7, 2014 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:11-cv-00444-AWI-SKO Document 88 Filed 03/10/14 Page 2 of 2