Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-00381/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-00381-22/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

GARY ANDRE LACY, 

Plaintiff,

vs.

H. TYSON, et al.,

Defendants. 

________________________________/

1:07-cv-00381-LJO-GSA (PC)

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S

MOTION 

(Doc. 124.)

ORDER DEFERRING DECISION ON

MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

PENDING RESOLUTION OF

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL

(Doc. 99.)

Gary Andre Lacy (“Plaintiff”) is a prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights action

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff filed this action on March 9, 2007. (Doc. 1.) This action

now proceeds on the Second Amended Complaint, filed on April 28, 2009, against defendants

Correctional Officers R. Reyna, T. Reyna, and N. Correa; Correctional Sergeants J. Peacock, M.

Bremnar, and M. Brookwalter; Captain H. Tyson; Medical Technician Assistant (MTA) Aspetitia;

and Doctor I. Patel; on Plaintiff's claims for excessive force, retaliation, and deliberate indifference

to serious medical needs. 

1

On December 7, 2011, Plaintiff filed a motion to compel production of documents, which

is pending. (Doc. 99.) Also pending is Defendants’ motion for summary judgment, filed on June

Defendants Dill and Heanacho were dismissed by the Court on August 27, 2009. (Doc. 17.) Plaintiff's 1

claims for equal protection, and for retaliation against defendant Dill, were also dismissed by the Court, for failure to

state a claim. Id. To date, defendant R. Reyna has not been successfully served with process.

Case 1:07-cv-00381-LJO-EPG Document 125 Filed 08/23/12 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

29, 2012. (Doc. 121.) On July 16, 2012, Plaintiff filed a motion for the Court to defer

consideration of Defendants’ motion for summary judgment pending resolution of Plaintiff’s

motion to compel. (Doc. 124.) 

Good cause having been presented to the court, and GOOD CAUSE APPEARING

THEREFOR, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s motion is GRANTED;

2. The Court shall defer its decision on Defendants’ motion for summary judgment,

filed on June 29, 2012, pending the resolution of Plaintiff’s motion to compel, filed

on December 7, 2011.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: August 23, 2012 /s/ Gary S. Austin 

6i0kij UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:07-cv-00381-LJO-EPG Document 125 Filed 08/23/12 Page 2 of 2