Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-01174/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-01174-10/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

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

1

 The record shows that the “Amended Complaint” filed on December 6, 2006 was

stricken by the Court. See Docket No. 18. The original complaint filed on May 31, 2006 was

dismissed on September 8, 2006 with leave to file an amended complaint. See Docket No. 5.

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

EARL GARDNER,

Plaintiff, No. CIV 2:06-cv-1174-ALA

vs.

SCOTT KERNAN, et. al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

In their Reply in support of their Motion to Dismiss, Defendants requested clarification

regarding whether the Motion to Dismiss should have addressed the original Complaint dated

May 31, 2006 or the Amended Complaint dated September 26, 2006. Defendants are advised

that the September 26, 2006, First Amended Complaint, Docket No. 8 is the only complaint

before this Court.1

 Defendants request for additional time to file an appropriate responsive

pleading is GRANTED. 

In their responsive pleading, the Defendants are directed to address the following issue:

Is Eleventh Amendment immunity an affirmative defense for Defendant Warden Kernan

and Defendant Woodford? Please address whether the defense is available to each defendant

separately and if so, what remedy, if any, is available to Mr. Gardner. 

Mr. Gardner will then have twenty-eight days from the date that Defendants file the

Case 2:06-cv-01174-ALA Document 29 Filed 11/09/07 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

2

responsive pleading to file a response to the above issue and to the responsive pleading. 

/////

In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Defendants’ Request for additional time is GRANTED; 

2. Defendants are each granted thirty-five days from the date of service of this order to

file an appropriate responsive pleading;

3. Plaintiff is granted twenty-eights days from the date that Defendants file their

responsive pleading to respond.

/////

DATED: November 8, 2007

/s/ Arthur L. Alarcón_____________

UNITED STATES CIRCUIT JUDGE

Sitting by Designation

Case 2:06-cv-01174-ALA Document 29 Filed 11/09/07 Page 2 of 2