Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_04-cv-02655/USCOURTS-caed-2_04-cv-02655-4/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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LARRY A. CHATMAN,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-04-2655 MCE GGH P

vs.

SOLANO COUNTY JAIL,

Defendant. ORDER

 /

On August 17, 2005, defendant Childers filed a motion to dismiss. On September

16, 2005, defendants Hambright and Mercado filed motions to dismiss. On September 16, 2005,

defendant Childers apparently inadvertently filed a motion to dismiss duplicative of the motion

filed August 17, 2005. On September 21, 2005, defendant Nixon filed a motion to dismiss.

On August 31, 2005, plaintiff filed a summary judgment motion. On September

23, 2005, plaintiff filed an opposition to defendant Childers’ motion to dismiss. On September

23, 2005, plaintiff filed a memorandum in support of his summary judgment motion.

After reviewing plaintiff’s pleadings, he does not appear to have filed oppositions

to the motions to dismiss filed by defendants Hambright, Mercado and Nixon. Accordingly,

plaintiff is ordered to show cause why the motions to dismiss filed on behalf of these defendants

should not be granted. If plaintiff intended any of his pleadings to be oppositions to these

Case 2:04-cv-02655-MCE -GGH Document 40 Filed 01/12/06 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

2

motions, he should so state in his response to the show cause order.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Defendant Childers’ motion to dismiss filed August 17, 2005, is vacated

because it is duplicative of the motion to dismiss filed September 16, 2005;

2. Plaintiff is ordered to show cause within twenty days of the date of this order

for his failure to oppose the motions to dismiss filed by defendants Hambright, Mercado and

Nixon; within that time, plaintiff shall file oppositions to these motions; 

3. Failure to comply with this order will result in a recommendation that the

motions to dismiss filed by defendants Hambright, Mercado and Nixon be granted.

DATED: 1/12/06 

/s/ Gregory G. Hollows

GREGORY G. HOLLOWS

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

GGH:kj

chat2655.osc

Case 2:04-cv-02655-MCE -GGH Document 40 Filed 01/12/06 Page 2 of 2