Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_16-cv-00517/USCOURTS-caed-2_16-cv-00517-28/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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ETUARTE SEKONA,

Plaintiff,

v.

F. CUSTINO,

Defendant.

No. 2:16-CV-0517-JAM-DMC-P

ORDER

Plaintiff, a prisoner proceeding pro se, brings this civil rights action pursuant to 

42 U.S.C. § 1983. Pending before the Court is defendant’s motion for leave to file a second 

dispositive motion, ECF No. 153.

Previously, this action proceeded against two defendants – Custino and Snow. On 

May 24, 2019, both defendants filed a motion for summary judgment. See ECF No. 118. 

Ultimately, on November 21, 2019, the motion was granted as to defendant Snow but denied as to 

plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment safety claim against defendant Custino. See ECF No. 143. On 

February 20, 2020, defendant Custino filed a designation of counsel for service upon the 

reassignment of the case to new counsel at the California Attorney General’s Office. See ECF 

No.151.

/ / /

/ / /

Case 2:16-cv-00517-DMC Document 161 Filed 03/31/20 Page 1 of 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

2

According to defendant’s current counsel, upon being assigned the case, he 

conducted a review and discovered that plaintiff’s claim against defendant may be barred by res 

judicata. Defendant states that allowing a second dispositive motion on the issue before trial 

could result in a substantial savings of time. Defendant also argues that plaintiff would not be 

prejudiced by an early pre-trial determination of the issue because the defense would be disclosed 

in pre-trial status reports and he would thus have to prepare for such a defense at trial even absent 

a second dispositive motion. Defendant has filed concurrently with his motion a motion for 

judgment on the pleadings. See ECF No. 154.

Plaintiff has not opposed defendant’s request for leave to file a second dispositive 

motion, specifically a motion for judgment on the pleadings. Instead, plaintiff has filed an 

opposition to defendant’s motion for judgment on the pleadings. See ECF Nos. 158 and 159. 

Defendant has filed a reply. See ECF No. 160. 

Because plaintiff has not opposed the request to file a second dispositive motion, 

and good cause appearing therefor, defendant’s motion for leave to file a motion for judgment on 

the pleadings will be granted. Defendant’s motion for judgment on the pleadings, filed on 

February 27, 2020, will be deemed properly filed. Plaintiff’s motion for an extension of time to 

file an opposition to defendant’s motion will be granted and plaintiff’s opposition, filed on March 

23, 2020, will be deemed timely. Defendant’s fully-briefed motion for judgment on the pleadings 

will be addressed by separate findings and recommendations. 

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

Case 2:16-cv-00517-DMC Document 161 Filed 03/31/20 Page 2 of 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

3

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Defendant’s motion for leave to file a motion for judgment on the 

pleadings, ECF No. 153, is granted; 

2. Defendant’s motion for judgment on the pleadings, ECF No. 154, is 

deemed properly filed; 

3. Plaintiff’s motion for an extension of time to file an opposition to 

defendant’s motion, ECF No. 156, is granted; and

4. Plaintiff’s opposition to defendant’s motion, ECF Nos. 158 and 159, is 

deemed timely.

Dated: March 30, 2020

____________________________________

DENNIS M. COTA

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:16-cv-00517-DMC Document 161 Filed 03/31/20 Page 3 of 3