Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-02044/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-02044-9/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

MARK S. SOKOLSKY,

Plaintiff,

v.

CHRISTINE MATIVO, et al., 

Defendants.

Case No. 1:13-cv-02044 LJO DLB PC

ORDER DIRECTING DEFENDANTS TO 

FILE ANSWER 

Plaintiff Mark S. Sokolsky, a civil detainee proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed 

this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on December 16, 2013. This action is 

proceeding on Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint filed on February 4, 2016.

On September 17, 2015, the Court issued an order directing the U.S. Marshal Service to 

serve the First Amended Complaint on Defendants Bigot, Bowley, Domrese, King, and Mativo. 

On December 4, 2015, waivers of service were executed and sent to the Court by Defendants 

Mativo and King. Their answers were due on February 2, 2016. On December 18, 2015, 

waivers of service were executed and sent by Defendants Bigot and Bowley, and their answers 

were due on February 16, 2016. To date, a waiver of service has not been returned by Defendant 

Domrese and there is no indication that she has been served.

On January 14, 2016, Plaintiff filed a motion to amend the First Amended Complaint in 

order to substitute proper parties. Plaintiff noted that he had sued Defendants in their official 

Case 1:13-cv-02044-LJO-GSA Document 32 Filed 03/11/16 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

capacities and that their successors should be substituted in the action. Plaintiff lodged the 

proposed Second Amended Complaint on February 4, 2016. The Court granted the motion on

February 5, 2016, and directed the Clerk of Court to amend the docket insofar as the successors 

are automatically substituted as parties under Fed. R. Civ. P. 25(d)(1). 

To date, no Defendant has filed an answer even though answers were due on February 2, 

2016 and February 16, 2016. Given that there may have been confusion because of the timing of 

the amended complaint and substitution of parties, the Court will provide Defendants with leave 

to file an answer.

ORDER

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendants Coyne, Winthrow, Meeks, and 

Bonsu are DIRECTED to file an answer within ten (10) days of the date of service of this order. 

Failure to comply with the Court’s order may result in sanctions.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 11, 2016 /s/ Dennis L. Beck 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:13-cv-02044-LJO-GSA Document 32 Filed 03/11/16 Page 2 of 2