Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-01058/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-01058-10/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. 

On October 24, 2014, the Court this action could proceed against Defendants Wang, Ulit, 

Moon, and Smith on Plaintiff’s claim of deliberate indifference to a serious medical need, and the 

Court ordered service of the complaint by the United States Marshal on December 2, 2014. (ECF Nos. 

7, 9.) 

On February 10, 2015, Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the original complaint. (ECF No. 

14.) 

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. (ECF Nos. 19, 36.) 

On June 25, 2015, Defendants’ motion to dismiss was denied, except for dismissal of 

Plaintiff’s claims against Defendants in their official capacity for monetary damages. (ECF No. 36.) 

RALPH GARBARINI,

 Plaintiff,

v.

WAYNE ULIT, et al.,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

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

ORDER DIRECTING DEFENDANTS TO FILE A 

RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF’S FIRST AMENDED 

COMPLAINT, FILED SEPTEMBER 30, 2015, 

WITHIN THIRTY DAYS FROM THE DATE OF 

SERVICE OF THIS ORDER

[ECF No. 50]

Case 1:14-cv-01058-AWI-SAB Document 53 Filed 11/05/15 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

On July 6, 2015, Plaintiff filed a motion for leave to amend the complaint. (ECF No. 37.) 

Defendants do not oppose Plaintiff’s request to amend the complaint. (ECF No. 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.) 

Plaintiff’s motion to amend the complaint was granted on September 30, 2015, and Plaintiff’s 

first amended complaint lodged on July 6, 2015, was filed. (ECF Nos. 49, 50.) The Court also denied 

Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment as moot. (ECF No. 49.) 

The Court has screened Plaintiff’s first amended complaint, filed September 30, 3015,1 and 

finds that Plaintiff states a cognizable claim for deliberate indifference to a serious medical need 

against Defendants Wang, Ulit, Moon, and Smith. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. Accordingly, Defendants are 

required to file a response to Plaintiff’s first amended complaint within thirty (30) days from the date 

of service of this order. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 4, 2015 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

 

1

Plaintiff submitted an identical first amended complaint, which was lodged by the Court on October 13, 2015. (ECF No. 

52.) 

Case 1:14-cv-01058-AWI-SAB Document 53 Filed 11/05/15 Page 2 of 2