Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-01502/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-01502-8/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

Plaintiff John Catanzarite is appearing pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action 

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 

This action is proceeding on Plaintiff’s due process claim against Defendants Carrasco, 

Croxton, Drake, Gassaway, Gonzalez, Holland, Liles, Marshall, McLaughlin, Miner, Nipper, Pierce, 

Reed, Rouston, Schulteis, Snider, Steadman, and Walker. 

On March 24, 2014, Defendants filed a motion to dismiss based on the failure to exhaust the 

administrative remedies and violation of the applicable statute of limitations. Although Plaintiff 

requested and received an extension of time, Plaintiff did not file an opposition. Pursuant to Local 

Rule 230(l), all motions are deemed submitted after the deadlines for filing an opposition and/or reply 

expire. Local Rule 230(l). Accordingly, on July 10, 2014, the undersigned issued a Findings and 

Recommendation recommending that Defendants’ unenumerated Rule 12(b) motion be denied without 

prejudice and Defendants’ motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s claim arising prior to September 6, 2008 be 

JOHN CATANZARITE,

 Plaintiff,

v.

D. PIERCE, et al.,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 1:12-cv-01502-LJO-SAB (PC)

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF THIRTY DAYS 

TO SUBMIT OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ 

MOTION TO DISMISS FILED MARCH 24, 2014

[ECF No. 43]

Case 1:12-cv-01502-DAD-SAB Document 46 Filed 08/29/14 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

granted. The Findings and Recommendation advised the parties that any objections were to be filed 

within thirty days. 

On August 6, 2014, Plaintiff filed objections to the Findings and Recommendation. 

Defendants filed a reply on August 8, 2014. 

In his objections, Plaintiff contends that he sent a copy of his opposition through the prison 

mail service on Wednesday, May 28, 2014. In support of his assertion, Plaintiff submit a copy of the 

mail log which indeed indicates that a copy of the opposition to Defendants’ motion to dismiss was 

sent to this Court on May 28, 2014. However, to date, a review of the Court’s docket does not reveal 

receipt of a copy of Plaintiff’s opposition. 

Defendants also assert that counsel’s office never received a copy of Plaintiff’s opposition, and 

state that “[e]ven Plaintiff’s log book and declaration of service indicate that he did not serve 

Defendants with the opposition to Defendants’ motion to dismiss.” (ECF No. 44, Resp. at 2.) 

However, Defendants are advised that, as instructed in the Court’s First Informational Order issued in 

this case on September 14, 2012, “After defendants have appeared in a state civil rights action 

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. section 1983 by filing a response to the complaint (i.e., an answer, a motion to 

dismiss, or a motion for summary judgment), and are represented by the office of the California State 

Attorney General, plaintiff is not required to serve copies of filings on defendants or counsel, as 

counsel will receive service via the court’s electronic filing system.” (ECF No. 2, Order, at 3:4-10.) 

In light of the fact that Plaintiff sent a copy of his opposition to this Court on May 28, 2014, 

which was never received, Plaintiff will be granted thirty days from the date of service of this order to 

re-submit a copy of his opposition, and after filing of the opposition the Court will amend, if 

necessary, the pending Findings and Recommendation issued July 10, 2014. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 29, 2014 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:12-cv-01502-DAD-SAB Document 46 Filed 08/29/14 Page 2 of 2