Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_23-cv-02353/USCOURTS-caed-2_23-cv-02353-5/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

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SHAUNTAE TAYLOR,

Plaintiff,

v.

N. CAMERON, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 2:23-cv-02353-WBS-JDP (PC)

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

THAT PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR 

SUMMARY JUDGMENT BE DENIED AS 

PREMATURE

ECF No. 27

ORDER 

DENYING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR 

AN EXTENSION OF TIME AS MOOT 

ECF No. 29

Defendants’ have filed a motion seeking additional time to respond to plaintiff’s first 

amended complaint, ECF No. 29, and a motion to revoke plaintiff’s in forma pauperis status, 

ECF No. 28. However, shortly before defendants filed their motions, plaintiff filed a motion to 

amend his complaint, ECF No. 26, and a motion for summary judgment, ECF No. 27. 

In light of plaintiff’s motion to amend, I will deny defendants’ motion for additional time, 

ECF No. 29, as moot and recommend that plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment, ECF No. 27, 

be denied as premature. Plaintiff’s motion to amend has not been fully briefed and the parties 

Case 2:23-cv-02353-WBS-JDP Document 32 Filed 10/02/24 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

have not completed discovery. Before addressing either the motion to amend or the motion to 

revoke plaintiff’s in forma pauperis status, I will await the parties’ responses.

Accordingly, it is ORDERED that defendants’ motion for an extension of time, ECF No. 

29, is denied. 

Further, it is RECOMMENDED that plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment, ECF No. 

27, be denied as moot. 

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 

assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen days of 

service of these findings and recommendations, any party may file written objections with the 

court and serve a copy on all parties. Any such document should be captioned “Objections to 

Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations,” and any response shall be served and filed 

within fourteen days of service of the objections. The parties are advised that failure to file 

objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. See 

Turner v. Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 (9th Cir. 1998); Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 

1991). 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 2, 2024 

JEREMY D. PETERSON

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:23-cv-02353-WBS-JDP Document 32 Filed 10/02/24 Page 2 of 2