Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-01837/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-01837-9/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Federal Question: Bivens Act

---

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

Plaintiff David L. Stratmon, Jr. is a federal prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights action 

pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 

(1971). This matter was referred to the undersigned pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(1)(B) and Local Rule 

302. 

On November 12, 2014, the then-assigned District Judge adopted the findings and 

recommendations of the then-assigned Magistrate Judge, and ordered for this action to proceed against 

Defendant Angela Morris on Plaintiff’s claims of retaliation and interference with incoming mail.1

(ECF No. 16.) Following some delays due to service issues, the complaint was eventually served on 

Defendant Morris, who was required to respond to the complaint by May 20, 2015. (ECF Nos. 23, 24.) 

On May 18, 2015, Defendant filed a motion for partial summary judgment pursuant to Federal 

Rule of Civil Procedure 56, based on Plaintiff’s alleged failure to properly exhaust his administrative 

 

1 At that time, this matter was assigned to District Judge Lawrence J. O’Neill and Magistrate Judge Gary S. 

Austin. Due to Judge Austin’s temporary retirement from the bench, and the appointment of Judge Dale A. 

Drozd to the position of United States District Judge, this matter was later re-assigned. It currently proceeds 

before District Judge Drozd and the undersigned. 

DAVID L. STRATMON, JR.,

 Plaintiff,

v.

ANGELA MORRIS,

Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 1:12-cv-01837-DAD-SAB (PC)

ORDER DIRECTING DEFENDANT TO 

RESPOND TO COMPLAINT FOLLOWING 

DISPOSITION OF MOTION FOR SUMMARY 

JUDGMENT

Responsive Pleading Due Date: January 19, 2017

Case 1:12-cv-01837-DAD-SAB Document 58 Filed 01/09/17 Page 1 of 3
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

remedies prior to filing suit. (ECF No. 26.) No answer to the complaint was filed, and the parties 

proceeded to brief the motion for partial summary judgment over the next several months.

On August 24, 2016, the undersigned issued findings and recommendations recommending 

that Defendant’s partial motion for summary judgment be denied in part and granted in part. (ECF No. 

46.) Following some extensions of time, (ECF Nos. 50, 52), on November 15, 2016, Plaintiff objected 

to those findings and recommendations, (ECF No. 55).

On January 4, 2017, the District Judge adopted the findings and recommendations in full, over 

Plaintiff’s objections. (ECF No. 57.) Specifically, the District Judge ordered that Plaintiff’s claims that 

Defendant retaliated against him for filing an administrative grievance be dismissed without prejudice. 

Thus, the case proceeds on Plaintiff’s claim that Defendant interfered with his receipt of incoming 

mail and failed to notify him that his mail was being withheld. The District Judge also referred his 

matter to the undersigned for further proceedings. The January 4, 2017 order was entered by the Clerk 

of the Court on January 5, 2017, and electronic notice was provided to defense counsel on that date, 

while Plaintiff was served with the order by mail.

Defendant’s motion for partial summary judgment having been disposed of, Defendant is now 

required to file and serve a responsive pleading to the complaint. See Mann v. Lee, No. C 07-00781 

MMC (PR), 2009 WL 5178095, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 22, 2009) (discussing that a motion for 

summary judgment that adequately contests the action extends the time for a defendant to file a 

responsive pleading to the complaint until after summary judgment is decided, pursuant to the tolling 

provisions of Rule 12(a)). Under the relevant provisions of Rule 12(a), a responsive pleading must be 

served within fourteen days after notice of the Court’s disposition of Defendant’s motion for partial 

summary judgment. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(a)(4)(A). 

//

//

//

//

//

//

Case 1:12-cv-01837-DAD-SAB Document 58 Filed 01/09/17 Page 2 of 3
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

Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant file and serve a responsive pleading to 

Plaintiff’s complaint on or before January 19, 2017. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 6, 2017 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:12-cv-01837-DAD-SAB Document 58 Filed 01/09/17 Page 3 of 3