Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_20-cv-00323/USCOURTS-caed-1_20-cv-00323-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 28:1983 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

DORA SOLARES,

Plaintiff,

v.

RALPH DIAZ, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:20-cv-00323-NONE-BAM

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S

UNOPPOSED EX PARTE APPLICATION 

FOR A RULING ON DEFENDANTS’ 

MOTION TO DISMISS

(Doc. 34)

Plaintiff Dora Solares initiated this civil rights action against defendants Ralph Diaz, 

Kenneth Clark and Joseph Burns (collectively “Defendants”) on March 2, 2020. (Doc. 1.) 

Plaintiff filed a first amended complaint on June 8, 2020. 

On June 22, 2020, Defendants moved to dismiss Plaintiff’s first amended complaint. 

(Doc. 16.) The motion is fully briefed. 

On April 12, 2021, the district court referred the motion to dismiss to the undersigned for 

findings and recommendations. (Doc. 28.) Thereafter, on April 16, 2021, the court stayed 

discovery in this action pending an order resolving the motion to dismiss. The court indicated 

that it would address the pending motion to dismiss as soon as practicable to minimize any delay. 

(Doc. 32.)

On July 28, 2021, Plaintiff filed the instant ex parte application requesting a ruling on the 

motion to dismiss. (Doc. 34.) Plaintiff notes that more than a year has passed since Defendants 

Case 1:20-cv-00323-LHR-BAM Document 35 Filed 07/30/21 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

filed their motion to dismiss and more than three months have passed since the motion was 

referred to the undersigned. Plaintiff’s counsel declares that the delay in a ruling on the motion to 

dismiss results in the continued stay of discovery and, in turn, “severely prejudices Plaintiff.” 

(Doc. 34, Declaration of Counsel at ¶¶ 5, 6.) Plaintiff’s counsel reports, on information and 

belief, that some potential witnesses have been released from CDCR custody and/or employment, 

which hampers Plaintiff’s ability to locate these witnesses and forces Plaintiff to incur significant 

costs conducting private independent investigation of this case that would otherwise be addressed 

by discovery. (Id. at ¶ 6.) Plaintiff indicates that Defendants do not oppose the ex parte request. 

As a general matter, the court attempts to address motions in the order in which they are 

filed and strives to avoid delays whenever possible. However, as the parties are aware, the judges 

of the Eastern District of California have long labored under one of the heaviest caseloads in the 

nation, and delays are inevitable despite the court’s best efforts. The court is cognizant of the 

delay in resolving the pending motion to dismiss and will issue findings and recommendations in 

due course. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s ex parte application for a ruling on Defendants’ motion to 

dismiss (Doc. 34) is HEREBY GRANTED. 

. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 29, 2021 /s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe _

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:20-cv-00323-LHR-BAM Document 35 Filed 07/30/21 Page 2 of 2