Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-00118/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-00118-10/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JANICE SUGITA,

Plaintiff,

v.

B. PARKER, et al.,

Defendants.

CASE NO. 1:13-cv-00118-AWI-MJS (PC)

ORDER REGARDING DEFENDANT’S 

REQUEST FOR CLARIFICATION RE 

MOTION TO DISMISS

(ECF No. 49.)

I. PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil 

rights action brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1983. (ECF Nos. 4 & 10.) The action 

proceeds on a First Amendment retaliation claim against Defendant Longia.1 (ECF No. 

10.)

Defendant filed a motion seeking to modify the Court’s Second Scheduling Order 

(ECF No. 37.) to enable him to file a motion for judgment on the pleadings. (ECF No. 

40.) The Court denied the motion and Defendant’s motion for reconsideration of that 

denial. (ECF Nos. 41 & 47.)

 

1 The Court granted Defendants Salinas’ and Longia’s motions for summary judgment on 

Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment medical indifference claims. (ECF No. 36.)

Case 1:13-cv-00118-AWI-MJS Document 51 Filed 11/02/15 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

Before the Court is Defendant’s request for clarification regarding a motion to 

dismiss. (ECF No. 49.)

II. MOTION FOR CLARIFICATION

Defendant asks whether the Court’s use, in its order denying his motion for 

reconsideration, of the words “[t]he defense of failure to state a claim remains available 

to Defendant” granted him leave to file a motion to dismiss (ECF No. 47.)

The extended deadline for filing dispositive motions in this case was January 30, 

2015. (ECF No. 26.) The Court has not granted Defendant leave to file a motion to 

dismiss or any other dispositive motion beyond the deadline. 

The defense of failure to state a claim can be raised at trial. Fed. R. Civ. P. 

12(h)(2)(C). 

To the extent that this further clarifies the issue for Defendant, his motion is 

GRANTED. 

III. CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

Defendant’s motion for clarification (ECF No. 49) is GRANTED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 2, 2015 /s/Michael J. Seng 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:13-cv-00118-AWI-MJS Document 51 Filed 11/02/15 Page 2 of 2