Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_09-cv-01329/USCOURTS-caed-1_09-cv-01329-42/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

FLOYD SCOTT,

Plaintiff,

v.

J. PALMER, et al.,

Defendants.

_____________________________________/

Case No. 1:09-cv-01329-LJO-SKO (PC)

ORDER ADDRESSING MOTION FOR 

CLARIFICATION

(Doc. 183)

Plaintiff Floyd Scott (“Plaintiff”), a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, 

filed this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on July 29, 2009. This action for 

damages is proceeding against Defendants Palmer, Rivera, and Lopez (“Defendants”) on 

Plaintiff=s claim that while he was at Kern Valley State Prison in Delano, California, Defendant 

Palmer used excessive physical force against him and Defendants Rivera and Lopez failed to 

intervene, in violation of his rights under the Eighth Amendment of the United States Constitution. 

On December 29, 2014, Plaintiff filed a motion seeking clarification of the term 

“dispositive motion” as contemplated by the pretrial dispositive motion deadline. Plaintiff is 

informed that the deadline applies to motions which resolve the action in whole or in part, usually 

in the form of a motion for summary judgment at that stage in the proceedings. As the parties 

were previously informed, however, because the Court already resolved a motion for summary

judgment on the merits and excessive force claims generally require fact finding by a jury, the 

pretrial dispositive motion deadline should not be viewed as an indication that a dispositive 

Case 1:09-cv-01329-SKO Document 187 Filed 01/05/15 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

motion is anticipated by the Court or that there exist issues suitable for disposition prior to trial. 

This action will be set for jury trial following the resolution of any motions filed or following the 

expiration of the pretrial dispositive motion deadline if no motions are filed.

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion for clarification is deemed addressed and resolved.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 5, 2015 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:09-cv-01329-SKO Document 187 Filed 01/05/15 Page 2 of 2