Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_10-cv-02009/USCOURTS-caed-2_10-cv-02009-15/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 

DANNY MURPHY COSTON, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

ANDREW NANGALAMA, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. 2:10-cv-2009-MCE-EFB P 

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 

 Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding without counsel in an action brought under 42 

U.S.C. § 1983. He has filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings pursuant to Rule 12(c) of the 

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. ECF No. 110. Rule 12(c) provides that “[a]fter the pleadings 

are closed--but early enough not to delay trial--a party may move for judgment on the pleadings.” 

“Judgment on the pleadings is properly granted when there is no issue of material fact in dispute, 

and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fleming v. Pickard, 581 F.3d 

922, 925 (9th Cir. 2009). 

Plaintiff’s motion must be denied on both procedural and substantive grounds. Pursuant 

to the court’s discovery and scheduling order, the deadline for filing dispositive motions was July 

11, 2012. ECF Nos. 44, 54. Plaintiff’s motion is thus, untimely. In addition, the defendants 

previously sought summary judgment and in denying that motion, the court found numerous 

disputed issues of fact for trial. See ECF Nos. 67, 73; ECF No. 80 (Pretrial Order) at 5 (summary 

Case 2:10-cv-02009-DC-EFB Document 123 Filed 07/01/14 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

of disputed factual issues). Those same factual disputes preclude entry of judgment as a matter 

law in favor of plaintiff. 

For these reasons, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that plaintiff’s motion for 

judgment on the pleadings (ECF No. 110) be denied. 

 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 

assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen days 

after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written 

objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned 

“Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Any response to the 

objections shall be served and filed within fourteen days after service of the objections. The 

parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to 

appeal the District Court’s order. Turner v. Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 (9th Cir. 1998); Martinez 

v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 

DATED: June 30, 2014. 

 

 

Case 2:10-cv-02009-DC-EFB Document 123 Filed 07/01/14 Page 2 of 2