Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_21-cv-00600/USCOURTS-caed-1_21-cv-00600-21/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RODERICK WILLIAM LEAR,

Plaintiff,

v.

NAVARRO, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:21-cv-00600-DAD-BAM (PC)

ORDER REQUIRING DEFENDANTS TO 

RESPOND TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR 

RECONSIDERATION REGARDING 

PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST TO STAY RULING 

ON SUMMARY JUDGMENT UNTIL HE 

OBTAINS EXHAUSTION DISCOVERY 

RESPONSES FROM DEFENDANTS

(ECF No. 76)

TWENTY-ONE (21) DAY DEADLINE

Plaintiff Roderick William Lear (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in 

forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action proceeds on 

Plaintiff’s first amended complaint against Defendants Navarro, Neve, Allison, and Plata 

(formerly John Doe 1) for excessive force in violation of the Eighth Amendment, arising from the 

incident on January 4, 2020.

On May 13, 2022, Defendants Navarro, Neve, and Allison (“Defendants”) filed a motion 

for summary judgment on the grounds that Plaintiff failed to exhaust his available administrative 

remedies before filing suit. (ECF No. 65.) On May 20, 2022, Plaintiff filed a motion requesting 

that the Court stay Defendants’ motion for summary judgment until after he receives discovery 

concerning his use of force appeals. (ECF No. 69.) Defendants did not file an opposition.

Case 1:21-cv-00600-KES-BAM Document 80 Filed 07/19/22 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

On June 10, 2022, Plaintiff filed a notice of resubmission of his opposition to Defendants’ 

motion for summary judgment, together with his opposition to the motion for summary judgment. 

(ECF Nos. 70, 71.) Plaintiff indicated that he first attempted to send his opposition to the motion 

for summary judgment on May 25, 2022, but the opposition was returned to him unopened on 

June 3, 2022. Plaintiff mailed the opposition to the Court again on June 5, 2022. (ECF No. 70.) 

The Court found that as Plaintiff had filed his opposition, the motion for the Court to deny or stay 

Defendants’ motion for summary judgment was denied as moot and Defendants were directed to 

file any reply brief within fourteen days. (ECF No. 73.)

On June 23, 2022, before the expiration of the deadline for Defendants’ reply brief, 

Plaintiff filed the instant motion requesting that the Court reconsider his request to stay a ruling 

on the motion for summary judgment. (ECF No. 76.) Plaintiff states that he had hoped to 

supplement the exhibits to his opposition with Defendants’ discovery responses, which he had not 

yet received as of the date of his motion for reconsideration. Plaintiff further states that his

intentions were to show the Court he was prepared to fight the summary judgment motion but still 

required discovery responses, and he was not sure of the deadline to file. Plaintiff has written 

what is effectively a “meet and confer” “letter” to Defendants’ attorney arguing that the discovery 

responses due June 3, 2022 are delayed, but he has not heard from Defendants. Plaintiff requests 

that the Court allow him to submit exhaustion discovery responses as soon as Defendants submit 

them. (Id.)

Defendants did not file a response to Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration or a reply brief 

in support of the motion for summary judgment, and both deadlines have since expired. Having 

reviewed Plaintiff’s motion, the Court finds it appropriate to obtain a response from Defendants 

regarding Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration, specifically addressing whether there are any 

outstanding discovery requests related to the issue of exhaustion, and if so, when discovery 

responses were or will be served on Plaintiff.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED as follows:

1. Defendants shall file a response to Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration, (ECF No. 76), 

within twenty-one (21) days from the date of service of this order; and

Case 1:21-cv-00600-KES-BAM Document 80 Filed 07/19/22 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

2. Plaintiff may file a reply, if any, within fourteen (14) days of the date of service of 

Defendants’ response.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 18, 2022 /s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe _

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:21-cv-00600-KES-BAM Document 80 Filed 07/19/22 Page 3 of 3