Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_11-cv-01884/USCOURTS-caed-1_11-cv-01884-25/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

ROBIN DASENBROOK,

Plaintiff,

vs.

A. ENENMOH, et al.,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 1:11-cv-01884 DAD DLB PC

ORDER REGARDING DEFENDANTS’ 

REQUEST FOR CLARIFICATION

[ECF No. 183]

Plaintiff Robin Dasenbrook (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in 

forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1983. This action is proceeding 

against Defendants Enenmoh, Page, Perez, and Adair for claims of negligence and deliberate 

indifference to a serious medical need in violation of the Eighth Amendment.

On September 11, 2013, the Court issued a Discovery and Scheduling Order. At the 

time, not all Defendants had appeared in this action. On May 9, 2014, Defendants Enenmoh and 

Page filed a motion for summary judgment. Plaintiff filed an opposition on June 12, 2014, and 

Defendants filed a reply on July 14, 2014. On September 17, 2014, in light of the re-opening of 

discovery as to additional defendants, the Court dismissed the motion without prejudice to refiling.

Case 1:11-cv-01884-DAD-GSA Document 184 Filed 07/06/16 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 June 24, 2016, the Court issued a second Discovery and Scheduling Order concerning 

the two additional Defendants, Adair and Perez.

On July 1, 2016, Defendants Enenmoh and Page filed a request for clarification regarding 

their motion for summary judgment that had been previously dismissed. Defendants ask that in 

the interest of judicial economy the Court to reinstate their motion for summary judgment now 

that the issue of unidentified defendants has been resolved. Good cause appearing therefore, 

Defendant’s motion for summary judgment will be reinstated.

ORDER

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendants’ motion is GRANTED, and 

the motion for summary judgment dated May 9, 2014, is REINSTATED along with Plaintiff’s 

opposition and Defendants’ reply. The deadlines set forth in the second Discovery and 

Scheduling Order of June 24, 2016, concerning Defendants Adair and Perez remain the same.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 6, 2016 /s/ Dennis L. Beck 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:11-cv-01884-DAD-GSA Document 184 Filed 07/06/16 Page 2 of 2