Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_18-cv-00080/USCOURTS-caed-1_18-cv-00080-18/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 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

ERNEST S. HARRIS, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

SEXTON, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. 1:18-cv-0080 KJM DB P 

ORDER 

 Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed this civil rights action seeking relief 

under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge as provided 

by 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 

 On December 12, 2019 and August 11, 2020, the magistrate judge filed findings and 

recommendations on separate requests for injunctive relief filed by plaintiff. The findings and 

recommendations were served on all parties and contained notice to all parties that any objections 

to the findings and recommendations were to be filed within thirty days. Plaintiff filed 

objections to both sets of findings and recommendations. In accordance with the provisions of 28 

U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 304, this court has conducted a de novo review of this case. 

Having reviewed the file, the court finds both sets of findings and recommendations to be 

supported by the record and by the proper analysis. Accordingly, both will be adopted in full. 

///// 

Case 1:18-cv-00080-DC-SCR Document 84 Filed 11/10/21 Page 1 of 3
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 

Additionally, on February 18, 2021, plaintiff filed a motion to amend the complaint. ECF 

No. 66. On March 31, 2021, this court issued an order staying this action pending resolution of a 

motion for rehearing en banc filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in 

another action, Rico v. Ducart, Case No. 2:17-1402 KJM DB P. Order (March 31, 2021), ECF 

No. 70. On April 1, 2021, plaintiff filed a motion for an extension of time to file a reply brief in 

support of his motion to amend, ECF No. 71; the reply was filed April 12, 2021. ECF No. 72. 

On October 5, 2021, the court granted defendants’ motion to lift the stay and directed defendants 

to file a dispositive motion or motion for a new scheduling order within sixty days. Order (Oct. 5, 

2021), ECF No. 74. On the same day, plaintiff filed a motion for a ruling on the merits of his 

claims, ECF No. 75, to which defendants responded on October 26, 2021, ECF No. 80. On 

November 3, 2021, defendants filed a notice of suggestion of the death of defendant Sexton, ECF 

No. 81, and a motion for a new scheduling order, ECF No. 82. 

After review, the court finds plaintiff’s October 5, 2021 motion contains argument in 

support of proceeding to the merits of his claims. By their most recent motion, defendants seek 

additional time to investigate the claims and develop evidence to support their defense. ECF No. 

82 at 1. The parties agree that a new scheduling order should be issued. Accordingly, these 

motions will be granted and this matter will be referred back to the assigned magistrate judge for 

resolution of plaintiff’s motions to amend the complaint and for extension of time to file a reply 

brief, ECF Nos. 66, 71, issuance of a new scheduling order, and further pretrial proceedings 

consistent with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 

 In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 

1. The findings and recommendations filed December 12, 2019, ECF No. 58, are 

adopted in full; 

2. Plaintiff’s November 4, 2019 motion for emergency injunction, ECF No. 57, is 

DENIED; 

3. The findings and recommendations filed August 11, 2020, ECF No. 61, are adopted in 

full; 

4. Plaintiff’s motion for temporary restraining order, ECF No. 60, is DENIED; 

Case 1:18-cv-00080-DC-SCR Document 84 Filed 11/10/21 Page 2 of 3
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 

3 

5. Plaintiff’s October 5, 2021 motion, ECF No. 75, is construed as a motion for new 

scheduling order and, so construed, is GRANTED; 

6. Defendants’ November 3, 2021 motion for a new scheduling order, ECF No. 82, is 

GRANTED; and 

7. This matter is referred back to the assigned magistrate judge for resolution of 

plaintiff’s motions to amend the complaint and for extension of time to file a reply 

brief, ECF Nos. 66, 71, issuance of a new scheduling order, and further pretrial 

proceedings consistent with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 

This order resolves ECF Nos. 57, 60, 61, 75, 82. 

DATED: November 9, 2021. 

Case 1:18-cv-00080-DC-SCR Document 84 Filed 11/10/21 Page 3 of 3