Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-01058/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-01058-8/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

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Plaintiff Ralph Garbarini is appearing pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action 

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 

This action is proceeding against Defendants Wang, Ulit, Moon, and Smith on Plaintiff’s claim 

of deliberate indifference to a serious medical need.

On March 30, 2015, Plaintiff filed a motion for summary judgment and the Court ordered 

Defendants to oppose the motion on or before July 16, 2015. Doc. 36.

On July 6, 2015, Plaintiff filed a motion for leave to amend the complaint. Doc. 37. 

Defendants do not oppose Plaintiff’s request to amend the complaint. Doc. 42. However, Defendants 

request that Plaintiff’s pending motion for summary judgment be vacated because (1): an amended 

complaint supersedes the original complaint and the motion for summary judgment is based on the 

original complaint; (2) Plaintiff recently filed an interlocutory appeal; and (3) if amendment is granted, 

the Court must screen the amended complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. Id.

RALPH GARBARINI,

 Plaintiff,

v.

WAYNE ULIT, et al.,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 1:14-cv-01058-AWI-SAB (PC)

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION 

FOR LEAVE TO FILE AN AMENDED 

COMPLAINT, AND DENYING PLAINTIFF’S 

MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AS 

MOOT

[Docs. 19, 37, 45]

Case 1:14-cv-01058-AWI-SAB Document 49 Filed 09/30/15 Page 1 of 2
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

In light of Defendants’ notice of non-opposition, the Court finds no prejudice to the opposing 

party in allowing the amendment. Thus, Plaintiff’s motion to amend the complaint shall be granted 

and the Court will direct the Clerk to file the amended complaint, lodged on July 6, 2015. Doc. 38. 

Consequently, Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment based on the original complaint is now moot 

and shall be denied. Plaintiff’s amended complaint will be screened by the assigned magistrate judge 

in due course. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A.

Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY ORDERED that: 

1. Plaintiff’s motion for leave to file an amended complaint (Doc. 37) is GRANTED;

2. The Clerk of Court is directed to file the amended complaint lodged on July 6, 2015 

(Doc. 38); and

3. Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment (Doc. 19) is DENIED as MOOT.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 30, 2015 

 SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:14-cv-01058-AWI-SAB Document 49 Filed 09/30/15 Page 2 of 2