Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_16-cv-00634/USCOURTS-caed-1_16-cv-00634-0/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

FRANCISCO PALACIOS,

Plaintiff,

v.

JEFFREY BEARD, et al., 

Defendants.

Case No.: 1:16-cv-00634-MJS (PC)

ORDER DENYING REQUEST TO STAY 

RESPONSIVE PLEADING DEADLINE AND 

DIRECTING DEFENDANTS TO FILE 

RESPONSIVE PLEADING 

(ECF No. 15)

TEN (10) DAY DEADLINE

Plaintiff Francisco Palacios, a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma 

pauperis, filed this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on May 5, 2016. (ECF 

No. 1.) Plaintiff has consented to Magistrate Judge jurisdiction. (ECF No. 5.) 

On August 24, 2016, the Court screened Plaintiff’s complaint pursuant to 28 

U.S.C. § 1915A and found that it stated an Eighth Amendment claim against Defendant 

Ybarra for excessive force and a First Amendment retaliation claim against Defendants 

Ybarra and Stark. (ECF No. 6). On December 13, 2016, Defendants waived service; they 

were directed to file an answer on or before January 6, 2017. 

On January 5, 2017, Defendants moved for a fourteen day extension of time to file 

Case 1:16-cv-00634-DAD-MJS Document 18 Filed 01/23/17 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

a motion for summary judgment on exhaustion grounds and requested to stay their 

responsive pleading pending the outcome of their motion. (ECF No. 12.) On January 20, 

2017, Defendants filed a motion for summary judgement. (ECF No. 14.) They also 

renewed their request to stay their responsive pleading pending the outcome of their 

motion. (ECF No. 15.)

While Defendants are certainly free to file a motion for summary judgment at any 

time “until 30 days after the close of all discovery,” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(b), such a motion 

does not absolve Defendants of their responsibility to respond to Plaintiff’s complaint. 

See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b). The obligation to file an answer is not particularly onerous.

Furthermore, an initial review of Defendants’ summary judgment motion indicates that 

there may be disputed issues of fact necessitating an evidentiary hearing, rendering the 

requested stay lengthy if granted. The Court does not see that the interests of judicial 

economy will be served by staying the responsive pleading deadline at this time. 

. Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that Defendants’ request to stay the 

responsive pleading deadline is DENIED. However, Defendants will be granted ten (10) 

days from the date of this order to file their answer.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 23, 2017 /s/Michael J. Seng 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:16-cv-00634-DAD-MJS Document 18 Filed 01/23/17 Page 2 of 2