Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_23-cv-00947/USCOURTS-caed-1_23-cv-00947-6/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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CHARLENE STITH,

Plaintiff,

v.

STATE OF CALIFORNIA, et al.,

Defendants.

No. 1:23-cv-00947 KES GSA (PC)

ORDER DIRECTING PLAINTIFF TO FILE 

RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS’ MOTION 

TO DISMISS

(ECF No. 27)

PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSE TO 

DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS, OR, 

IN THE ALTERNATIVE, A STATEMENT OF 

NON-OPPOSITION TO IT, DUE IN THIRTY 

DAYS

VICTORIA GREEN,

Plaintiff,

v.

STATE OF CALIFORNIA, et al.,

Defendants.

No. 1:23-cv-00973 KES GSA (PC)

ORDER DIRECTING PLAINTIFF TO FILE 

RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS’ MOTION 

TO DISMISS

(ECF No. 24)

PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSE TO 

DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS, OR, 

IN THE ALTERNATIVE, A STATEMENT OF 

NON-OPPOSITION TO IT, DUE IN THIRTY 

DAYS

Case 1:23-cv-00947-JLT-GSA Document 30 Filed 10/29/24 Page 1 of 4
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

2

RAYSHAWN HART,

Plaintiff,

v.

STATE OF CALIFORNIA, et al.,

Defendants.

No. 1:23-cv-00977 KES GSA (PC)

ORDER DIRECTING PLAINTIFF TO FILE 

RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS’ MOTION 

TO DISMISS

(ECF No. 21)

PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSE TO 

DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS, OR, 

IN THE ALTERNATIVE, A STATEMENT OF 

NON-OPPOSITION TO IT, DUE IN THIRTY 

DAYS

ZENAIDA CORDOVA

Plaintiff,

v.

GREG RODRIGUEZ, et al.,

Defendants.

No. 1:24-cv-00482 KES GSA (PC)

ORDER DIRECTING PLAINTIFF TO FILE 

RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS’ MOTION 

TO DISMISS

(ECF No. 16)

PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSE TO 

DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS, OR, 

IN THE ALTERNATIVE, A STATEMENT OF 

NON-OPPOSITION TO IT, DUE IN THIRTY 

DAYS

Plaintiffs in the above-referenced cases are state prisoners who have filed civil rights 

actions seeking relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. All Plaintiffs are represented by the same counsel. 

These matters were referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 

636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.

For the reasons stated below, the above-referenced Plaintiffs will be ordered to file 

responses to Defendants’ motions to dismiss, or, in the alternative, statements of non-opposition 

to them. Plaintiffs will be given thirty days to take either course of action.

I. RELEVANT FACTS

On October 1, 2024, Defendants in each of the above-referenced matters filed motions to 

dismiss. See Stith, ECF No. 27; Green, ECF No. 24; Hart, ECF No. 21, and Cordova, ECF No. 

16. Recently, these cases have been referred to District Judge Jennifer L. Thurston, and all dates 

Case 1:23-cv-00947-JLT-GSA Document 30 Filed 10/29/24 Page 2 of 4
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

3

previously set for these matters on the previously assigned District Judge’s calendar have been

vacated. See Stith, ECF No. 28; Green, ECF No. 25; Hart, ECF No. 22, and Cordova, ECF No. 

17.

II. DISCUSSION

In total, nine cases have been related in these proceedings. All Plaintiffs are different in 

each case, but many of the named Defendants are the same.

To date, motions to dismiss have been filed by Defendants in four of the other matters, 

and they have been fully briefed. See generally Robertson v. State of California, No. 1:23-cv00975 JLT GSA; Lipsy v. State of California, No. 1:23-cv-00976 JLT GSA; Graham v. State of 

California, No. 1:23-cv-01323 JLT GSA, and Purdagone v. State of California, No. 1:23-cv01324. The Court will consider Defendants’ motions on the papers in these cases. In the ninth 

matter, to date, no dispositive motion(s) has/have been filed.1 See generally Carroll v. State of 

California, No. 1:23-cv-00974 JLT GSA (docket entries).

Given that the four above-referenced, related matters have motions to dismiss that have 

been fully briefed and are submitted on the papers, in the interests of efficiency, the Court finds 

that submitting the instant four matters on the papers would best serve the interests of efficiency. 

Therefore, Plaintiffs will be ordered to file responses to Defendants’ motions to dismiss within 

thirty days. Thereafter, Defendants shall have fourteen days to file their replies, if any, after 

which, the motions to dismiss will be deemed submitted on the papers.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Within thirty days from the date of this order, Plaintiffs shall file a response to 

Defendants’ motions to dismiss in their respective case;

2. Defendants’ replies to Plaintiffs’ responses to Defendants’ motions to dismiss – if any 

– shall be filed within fourteen days of Plaintiffs filing their responses, and

1

 The only outstanding motion in Carroll is Plaintiff’s motion for injunctive relief. See Carroll, 

ECF No. 23. The Court will screen the Carroll matter in due course.

Case 1:23-cv-00947-JLT-GSA Document 30 Filed 10/29/24 Page 3 of 4
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

4

3. The matters will be deemed submitted on the papers fourteen days after Plaintiffs have 

filed their responses to Defendants’ motions to dismiss.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 28, 2024 /s/ Gary S. Austin 

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:23-cv-00947-JLT-GSA Document 30 Filed 10/29/24 Page 4 of 4