Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-01051/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-01051-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

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

MARIO DULANEY,

Plaintiff,

 v.

JERRY DYER, FRESNO POLICE 

DEPARTMENT, FRESNO POLICE 

OFFICER RICHARD BADILLA, FRESNO 

POLICE OFFICER MATHEW SILVER

 Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No. 1:14-cv-1051-BAM 

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR 

SUMMARY JUDGMENT AS PREMATURE 

Plaintiff Mario Dulaney (“Plaintiff”) appears to be a pretrial detainee1proceeding pro se 

and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff filed this 

action on July 3, 2014 and the Court screened the complaint and granted Plaintiff leave to 

amend. On October 24, 2014, Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint which is currently 

pending screening. Plaintiff names Police Chief Jerry Dyer, Fresno Police Officer Richard 

Badilla, and Fresno Police Officer Mathew Silver as defendants. Plaintiff has consented to 

magistrate judge jurisdiction. On January 15, 2015, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Summary 

Judgment.

The Court must initially screen the case to determine whether it states a cognizable claim 

for relief. After screening, if the Court finds that there are cognizable claims for relief, the Court 

will Order Plaintiff to complete and submit forms so that the U.S. Marshal can serve Defendants 

 

1 The allegations are unclear if Plaintiff is a pretrial detainee or a sentenced prisoner. For purposes of this order, 

the Court will assume Plaintiff is a pretrial detainee. 

Case 1:14-cv-01051-DAD-BAM Document 12 Filed 01/16/15 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

with Plaintiff's Complaint. Only then will the Defendants make an appearance and file an 

Answer.

Here, however, the First Amended Complaint has not yet been screened there has been no 

service of the Complaint on the Defendants, and Defendants have not yet appeared in the action. 

Thus, any Motion for Summary Judgment is premature.

The Court recognizes that Plaintiff wishes this action to proceed speedily. However, the 

Court has hundreds of similar cases pending which also require the Court's time and attention. 

The Court proceeds with the cases in the order that they are filed. Plaintiff can rest assured that 

the Court has not forgotten about his case nor is it lost. The Court will proceed with the 

screening the First Amended Complaint in due course. Plaintiff is advised to keep the Court 

apprised of his current address so as to receive all orders or pleadings filed in the case.

Accordingly, the Motion for Summary Judgment is DENIED without prejudice as 

premature.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 16, 2015 /s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe _

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:14-cv-01051-DAD-BAM Document 12 Filed 01/16/15 Page 2 of 2