Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_21-cv-00600/USCOURTS-caed-1_21-cv-00600-17/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

RODERICK WILLIAM LEAR,

Plaintiff,

v.

NAVARRO, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:21-cv-00600-DAD-BAM (PC)

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION 

TO STAY DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR 

SUMMARY JUDGMENT AS MOOT

(ECF No. 69)

Plaintiff Roderick William Lear (“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 Navarro, Neve, Allison, and Plata for 

excessive force in violation of the Eighth Amendment, arising from the incident on January 4, 

2020. The Court has ordered electronic service on Defendant Plata.

On May 13, 2022, Defendants Navarro, Neve, and Allison (“Defendants”) filed a motion 

for summary judgment on the grounds that Plaintiff failed to exhaust his available administrative 

remedies before filing suit. (ECF No. 65.) On May 20, 2022, Plaintiff filed a motion requesting 

that the Court stay Defendants’ motion for summary until after he receives discovery concerning 

his use of force appeals. (ECF No. 69.) Defendants did not file an opposition.

On June 10, 2022, Plaintiff filed a notice of resubmission of his opposition to Defendants’ 

motion for summary judgment, together with his opposition to the motion for summary judgment. 

Case 1:21-cv-00600-KES-BAM Document 72 Filed 06/13/22 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

(ECF Nos. 70, 71.) Plaintiff indicates that he first attempted to send his opposition to the motion 

for summary judgment on May 25, 2022, but the opposition was returned to him unopened on 

June 3, 2022. Plaintiff mailed the opposition to the Court again on June 5, 2022. (ECF No. 70.)

As the basis of Plaintiff’s motion for the Court to deny or stay Defendants’ motion for 

summary judgment was that he needed additional time to obtain certain documents in order to 

oppose Defendants’ motion for summary judgment, and Plaintiff has now filed his opposition to 

the motion for summary judgment, the Court finds that the motion is no longer necessary. 

Plaintiff’s opposition will be accepted as timely and Defendants will be permitted to file a reply.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED as follows:

1. Plaintiff’s motion requesting that the Court stay Defendants’ motion for summary 

judgment, (ECF No. 69), is DENIED as moot;

2. Plaintiff’s opposition to Defendants’ motion for summary judgment, (ECF No. 71), is 

accepted as timely; and

3. Defendants’ reply to Plaintiff’s opposition, if any, is due within seven (7) days of the date 

of service of this order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 13, 2022 /s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe _

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:21-cv-00600-KES-BAM Document 72 Filed 06/13/22 Page 2 of 2