Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_19-cv-00390/USCOURTS-caed-1_19-cv-00390-2/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

DASHAWN WILSON COMBS,

Plaintiff,

v.

MOORE, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:19-cv-00390-BAM (PC)

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S “MOTION 

FOR FAILURE TO EXHAUST SUMMARY” 

AS MOOT AND CONSTRUING AS 

OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ MOTION 

FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

(ECF No. 27)

SEVEN (7) DAY DEADLINE 

Plaintiff Dashawn Wilson Combs (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in 

forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action proceeds on 

Plaintiff’s first amended complaint against Defendants Moore, Ruelas, Brubaker, Ronquillo, and 

Perez for excessive force in violation of the Eighth Amendment and for deliberate indifference to 

medical needs in violation of the Eighth Amendment.

On January 16, 2020, Defendants filed an answer and a motion for summary judgment on 

the ground that Plaintiff failed to exhaust his prisoner administrative remedies as required by the 

Prison Litigation Reform Act. (ECF Nos. 22, 23.) On January 31, 2020, Plaintiff filed a 

document titled “Plaintiff Motion for Failure to Exhaust Summary.” (ECF No. 27.) Upon review 

of the document, it appears Plaintiff is attempting to file an opposition to the motion for summary 

judgment, rather than his own motion for summary judgment. As such, the “motion” is denied as 

Case 1:19-cv-00390-NONE-BAM Document 28 Filed 02/03/20 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

moot. The Court will construe the filing as Plaintiff’s opposition to Defendants’ pending motion 

for summary judgment and will reset the briefing schedule.

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s “Motion for Failure to Exhaust Summary,” (ECF No. 27), is 

DENIED as moot, and shall be construed as Plaintiff’s opposition to Defendants’ January 16, 

2020 motion for summary judgment for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. Defendants’ 

reply, if any, shall be filed within seven (7) days from the date of service of this order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 3, 2020 /s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe _

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:19-cv-00390-NONE-BAM Document 28 Filed 02/03/20 Page 2 of 2