Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_03-cv-06636/USCOURTS-caed-1_03-cv-06636-3/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

CHARLES CHATMAN,

Plaintiff,

v.

SERGEANT C. TYNER, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

CASE NO. 1:03-CV-6636-AWI-SMS-P

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR STAY AS

MOOT AND DIRECTING DEFENDANTS TO

FILE A RESPONSE TO AMENDED

COMPLAINT WITHIN THIRTY DAYS

(Doc. 35)

Plaintiff Charles Chatman (“plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma

pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On May 5, 2005, defendants

Winett, Bowman, Vazquez, Wells, Mack, Traynham, Duran, Fortson, Johnson, Jimenez, and Lundy

(“defendants”) filed a motion seeking to stay this action pending a decision from the United States

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit on plaintiff’s appeal of the district court’s denial of his

motion for reconsideration in Chatman v. Early 03-3820 (N.D.Cal.). (Doc. 35.) Plaintiff had sought

reconsideration of the district court’s order denying him leave to proceed in forma pauperis and

dismissing the action. On May 18, 2005, the court issued an order relieving defendants from

responding to plaintiff’s amended complaint pending resolution of their pending motion for a stay.

(Doc. 42.) On June 24, 2005, plaintiff filed an opposition to the motion for a stay, and on August

19, 2005, plaintiff notified the court that the Ninth Circuit had vacated the dismissal and remanded

the action back to the district court for further development of the record. (Docs. 48, 49.)

In light of resolution of plaintiff’s appeal in the Northern District case, it is HEREBY

ORDERED that:

Case 1:03-cv-06636-OWW -SMS Document 50 Filed 08/25/05 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

1. Defendants’ motion for a stay, filed May 5, 2005, is DENIED as moot; and

2. Defendants shall file a response to plaintiff’s amended complaint within thirty (30)

days from the date of service of this order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 24, 2005 /s/ Sandra M. Snyder 

icido3 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:03-cv-06636-OWW -SMS Document 50 Filed 08/25/05 Page 2 of 2