Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-02044/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-02044-14/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

MARK SOKOLSKY, 

 Plaintiff,

 vs.

STATE OF CALIFORNIA, et al.,

 Defendants.

1:13-cv-02044-LJO-GSA-PC

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S 

REQUEST FOR MORE DEFINITIVE 

ANSWER AS MOOT

(ECF No. 44.)

Plaintiff is a civil detainee proceeding pro se in a civil rights action pursuant to 42 

U.S.C. ' 1983. This case now proceeds on Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint, filed on 

February 4, 2016, against defendants Domrese, King, Meek, Porter, and Bonsu for denial of 

free exercise of religion under the First Amendment and violation of RLUIPA; and defendants 

Domrese, King, Porter, and Bonsu for violation of due process for conditions of confinement. 

(ECF No. 44.) On May 31, 2016, Defendants King, Coyne, and Porter filed an Answer to the 

Second Amended Complaint. (ECF No. 40.) 

On July 11, 2016, Plaintiff filed a request for the court to compel defendants King, 

Coyne, and Porter to file a more definitive Answer to the Second Amended Complaint. (ECF 

No. 44.) 

Plaintiff’s motion is moot because on July 21, 2016, defendants King, Coyne, Porter, 

Meek, and Bonsu filed an Amended Answer to the Second Amended Complaint. (ECF No. 

Case 1:13-cv-02044-LJO-GSA Document 57 Filed 10/27/16 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

46.) Because the Amended Answer supercedes the prior Answer filed on May 31, 2016, 

Plaintiff’s request for Defendants to update the prior Answer is moot and shall be denied as 

such. Fed. R. Civ. P. 15; Local Rule 220.

Accordingly, based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s 

request for a more definitive answer, filed on July 11, 2016, is DENIED as moot.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 27, 2016 /s/ Gary S. Austin 

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:13-cv-02044-LJO-GSA Document 57 Filed 10/27/16 Page 2 of 2