Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_11-cv-02712/USCOURTS-caed-2_11-cv-02712-7/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 

CHARLES G. REECE, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

AMRICK BASI, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. 2:11-cv-2712 TLN AC P 

ORDER 

 Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a civil rights action pursuant to 42 

U.S.C. § 1983. Because of a docketing error and the need for clarification regarding plaintiff’s 

claims, the court vacated the parties’ cross-motions for summary judgment with leave to re-file 

the motions within sixty days. ECF No. 91. 

 The court has received motions for summary judgment from defendants Lahey, Villote, 

and Basi. ECF Nos. 92, 94. The court has also received a motion for summary judgment from 

plaintiff against defendant Basi. ECF No. 95. The court has not received a motion for summary 

judgment from plaintiff against defendants Lahey and Villote, though it has received plaintiff’s 

opposition to their motion for summary judgment (ECF Nos. 96-100). The court notes that 

during the original filing of dispositive motions, plaintiff filed a motion for summary judgment 

against defendants Lahey and Villote that was designated as a “supplemental” motion for 

summary judgment. ECF No. 73-1. In light of the previous docketing error in this case, and to 

Case 2:11-cv-02712-TLN-AC Document 101 Filed 12/08/15 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

prevent any further such errors or delay, the court seeks clarification from plaintiff as to whether 

he filed a motion for summary judgment against defendants Lahey and Villote or whether he 

intended only to oppose their motion for summary judgment. 

 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that within fourteen days of service of this 

order, plaintiff must file a notice with the court stating whether he filed a renewed motion for 

summary judgment against defendants Lahey and Villote or whether he intended to file only an 

opposition to the motion for summary judgment filed by defendants Lahey and Villote. If 

plaintiff filed a renewed motion for summary judgment against defendants Lahey and Villote, he 

must submit another copy for filing and state the date he originally mailed the renewed motion. 

DATED: December 7, 2015 

Case 2:11-cv-02712-TLN-AC Document 101 Filed 12/08/15 Page 2 of 2