Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_11-cv-00444/USCOURTS-caed-1_11-cv-00444-15/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

KEVIN DARNELL BRYANT,

Plaintiff,

v.

DR. SHAEFER, et al.,

Defendants.

_____________________________________/

Case No. 1:11-cv-00444-AWI-SKO PC

ORDER VACATING DEFENDANTS=

MOTION TO DISMISS FROM COURT=S 

CALENDAR PENDING EVIDENTIARY 

HEARING

(Docs. 31, 60, and 78)

Plaintiff Kevin Darnell Bryant, a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, 

filed this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on March 17, 2011. This action is 

proceeding on Plaintiff’s amended complaint against Defendants Schaefer, Lopez, Keldgord, 

Harrington, and Flynn arising out of the policy and practice of crushing and floating Gabapentin 

and Tramadol, which led to internal injury to Plaintiff. Plaintiff alleges a claim for violation of his 

rights under the Eighth Amendment of the United States Constitution.

On March 20, 2013, Defendants Schaefer, Lopez, Harrington, and Flynn (“Defendants”) 

filed a motion to dismiss for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a); 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b). The motion is fully briefed, Local Rule 230(l), and on November 20, 2013, 

the Magistrate Judge set an evidentiary hearing for February 12, 2014, based on the existence of 

witness credibility issues, Morton v. Hall, 599 F.3d 942, 945 (9th Cir. 2010); Wyatt v. Terhune, 

315 F.3d 1108, 1119-20 (9th Cir. 2003). However, due to the unavailability of a material witness, 

the evidentiary hearing was continued to June 19, 2014.

Case 1:11-cv-00444-AWI-SKO Document 83 Filed 02/04/14 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

Accordingly, in light of 28 U.S.C. § 476(a)(1), the Civil Justice Reform Act, Defendants’ 

motion to dismiss is DEEMED VACATED from the Court’s calendar pending the evidentiary 

hearing.1

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 4, 2014 

 SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE

 

1 The Court’s action is purely administrative and the parties need take no further action. Once the evidentiary hearing 

is held, the Magistrate Judge will issue Findings and Recommendations, which will then be considered by the 

undersigned. 

Case 1:11-cv-00444-AWI-SKO Document 83 Filed 02/04/14 Page 2 of 2