Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_02-cv-06001/USCOURTS-caed-1_02-cv-06001-12/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 Plaintiff's pending motions for summary judgment were filed on 12/19/07 (Doc. 165), 01/30/08 (Doc. 168), 02/07/08 1

(Doc. 169), 03/28/08 (Doc. 173), and 04/25/08 (Doc. 178). Defendants' pending motion for summary judgment was filed on

04/09/08 (Doc. 176).

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

GREGORIO C. FUNTANILLA, JR.,

Plaintiff,

v.

DAVID TRISTAN, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

1:02-cv-06001-OWW-GSA-PC

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO

DENY ALL PENDING MOTIONS FOR

SUMMARY JUDGMENT AS MOOT

(Docs. 165, 168, 169, 173, 176, 178.)

OBJECTIONS, IF ANY, DUE IN 20 DAYS

I. DISCUSSION

Plaintiff Gregorio C. Funtanilla (“plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil

rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff filed this action on August 16, 2002. (Doc. 1.)

This action proceeds on the second amended complaint filed on March 10, 2003. (Doc. 36.) Now

pending are five motions for summary judgment filed by plaintiff and one motion for summary

judgment filed by defendants.

1

On October 12, 2007, this action was reassigned from Magistrate Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill

to Magistrate Judge Gary S. Austin. (Doc. 164.) In light of this reassignment, on June 23, 2008, the

court conducted a new screening of the second amended complaint. (Doc. 184.) As a result, the

Case 1:02-cv-06001-AWI -GSA Document 188 Filed 08/12/08 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

court issued findings and recommendations for the case to proceed against defendants Hanse, Means,

Medrano, and Thomas for failure to protect plaintiff, in violation of the Eighth Amendment;

defendants Atkinson, Buckley, Castillo, Gonzalez, Means, Salinas, Streeter, Vella, and Yates for

retaliation, in violation of the First Amendment; defendants Means, Vella, and Yates for violation

of Due Process; defendants Martinez, Medrano, and Thomas for failure to provide adequate medical

care, in violation of the Eighth Amendment; and defendants Brown, Galaza, and Vella for adverse

conditions of confinement, in violation of the Eighth Amendment. (Doc. 184.) Plaintiff requested

additional time to file objections to the findings and recommendations, and the extension was

granted. (Docs. 186, 187.) In light of the new screening, the court finds that the pending motions

for summary judgment filed by plaintiff and defendants prior to the new screening are moot and

should be denied without prejudice. 

II. CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that:

1. All pending motions for summary judgment in this action be DENIED as moot

without prejudice; and

2. After the new screening process is completed, the court shall issue a new scheduling

order to establish a time period for the parties to file pretrial dispositive motions. 

These Findings and Recommendations will be submitted to the United States District Judge

assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within twenty (20)

days after being served with these Findings and Recommendations, the parties may file written

objections with the court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s

Findings and Recommendations.” The parties are advised that failure to file objections within the

specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d

1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: August 11, 2008 /s/ Gary S. Austin 

6i0kij UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:02-cv-06001-AWI -GSA Document 188 Filed 08/12/08 Page 2 of 2