Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-01200/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-01200-6/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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RAYMOND BALDHOSKY ,

Plaintiff,

v.

SUSAN HUBBARD, et al., 

Defendants.

CASE NO. 1:12-cv-01200-MJS (PC)

ORDER DISCHARGING ORDER TO 

SHOW CAUSE

(ECF No. 43)

ORDER SETTING BRIEFING SCHEDULE 

ON DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS

(ECF Nos. 40 and 53)

OPPOSITION DUE WITHIN THIRTY (30) 

DAYS

REPLY DUE SEVEN (7) DAYS 

THEREAFTER

Plaintiff is a former state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights action 

brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 

On August 29, 2016, Defendants Gonzalez, Metts, and Kaylor filed a motion to 

dismiss. (ECF No. 40.) On August 30, 2016, the Court ordered defense counsel to file 

further briefing and appear at a hearing to show cause why sanctions should not be 

imposed for filing a motion that identified no grounds for reconsideration of the Court’s 

Case 1:12-cv-01200-JDP Document 54 Filed 10/27/16 Page 1 of 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

2

screening order. (ECF No. 43.) Plaintiff was instructed not to respond to Defendants’ 

motion absent further order of the Court.

Defense counsel filed supplemental briefing (ECF No. 47) and appeared at a 

hearing on October 7, 2016. (ECF No. 52.) Defense counsel was invited to submit

supplemental briefing on issues discussed at the hearing, and she was given ten days to 

do so. (Id.) Her brief was filed October 17, 2016. (ECF No. 53.)

Arguments presented at the hearing and in defense counsel’s supplemental brief

are sufficient to persuade the Court that the motion to dismiss was not brought in bad 

faith. Accordingly, sanctions will not be imposed, and the order to show cause is 

HEREBY DISCHARGED.

Additionally, the Court sets the following schedule for further briefing on 

Defendants’ motion to dismiss:

1. Plaintiff may file an opposition within thirty days of the date of this order; 

2. Defendants may file a reply within seven days of Plaintiff’s opposition; and

3. Absent further order of the Court, no surreply is permitted.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 26, 2016 /s/Michael J. Seng 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:12-cv-01200-JDP Document 54 Filed 10/27/16 Page 2 of 2