Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_10-cv-00397/USCOURTS-caed-1_10-cv-00397-18/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

LEONARD RANSOM, JR., 

 Plaintiff,

 vs.

R. MARQUEZ, et al.,

 Defendants.

1:10-cv-00397-AWI-EPG-PC

ORDER REQUESTING CLARIFICATION 

FROM DEFENSE COUNSEL WITHIN TEN

DAYS

Leonard Ransom, Jr. (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma 

pauperis with this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff filed the 

Complaint commencing this action on March 8, 2010. (Doc. 1.) This case now proceeds on 

the First Amended Complaint, filed on June 29, 2012, against defendants Correctional Officer 

(C/O) M. Amador, C/O Daniel Nava, C/O R. Marquez, and C/O Ralph Nunez for use of 

excessive force; and against defendants C/O Daniel Nava, C/O R. Marquez, Sergeant J. Ybarra, 

and Lieutenant Carlos Sandoval for failure to protect Plaintiff.1(Doc. 13.)

 

1 On August 8, 2012, the Court dismissed Plaintiff’s claim regarding his disciplinary process from this 

action for failure to state a claim. (Doc. 17.) The Court also dismissed defendants Daniel Gonzalez and Sergeant 

Ybarra from this action, based on Plaintiff’s failure to state any claims against them. Id. The Court also dismissed 

defendants Saul Ochoa, Harold Tyson, Eric Lunsford, Daniel Gonzalez, and Gina Marquez, without prejudice, on 

Plaintiff’s motion. Id. On October 3, 2012, defendant Sergeant Ybarra was reinstated as a defendant, under Fed. 

R. Civ. P. 60. (Doc. 22.) 

Case 1:10-cv-00397-AWI-EPG Document 123 Filed 12/02/15 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

On July 31, 2015, defendant Sandoval filed a motion for summary judgment, which is 

pending. (ECF No. 110.) The Court notes that the footnote on page 1 of Sandoval’s 

memorandum of points and authorities in support of the motion for summary judgment states:

“Defendants Sandoval, Amador, Nunez, Ybarra, Marquez and Nava have determined that the 

claims against them are not amenable to a summary judgment motion.” (ECF No. 111 at 1 

fn.1.) In light of defendant Sandoval’s pending motion for summary judgment, the Court 

requests clarification by defense counsel, within ten days, of the meaning of the footnote and 

whether defendant Sandoval was meant to be included in the footnote.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that within ten days from the date of service

of this order, defense counsel shall clarify the meaning of the footnote described in this order, 

and whether defendant Sandoval was meant to be included in the footnote.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 1, 2015 /s/

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:10-cv-00397-AWI-EPG Document 123 Filed 12/02/15 Page 2 of 2