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

 Plaintiff’s other claims were dismissed by order filed March 7, 2005. 1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MICHAEL A. HUNT,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-04-0435 LKK JFM P

vs.

COREY MCKAY, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with a civil

rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. By the sole claim remaining in this action, plaintiff

contends that his Fourteenth Amendment right to due process was violated when defendant

Vance improperly placed plaintiff’s name on a list of suspected or known Blood gang members,

associates, or sympathizers, causing plaintiff to be locked down for a period of twelve days. On 1

January 19, 2006, this court issued findings and recommendations recommending that defendant

Vance’s motion for summary judgment be granted. By order filed March 27, 2006, the district

court declined to adopt the findings and recommendations and remanded the matter to this court

for further proceedings. In relevant part, the district court denied defendant Vance’s motion for

summary judgment based on the existence of a factual dispute as to whether individuals on the

list at issue were being treated as if they were “validated ‘gang’ members” and, therefore,

Case 2:04-cv-00435-LKK -JFM Document 50 Filed 06/14/06 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

whether defendant was “using semantics to avoid the gang validation procedure.” (Order filed

March 27, 2006, at 2.) The court found that defendant had “failed to show how the treatment of

plaintiff was any different than the treatment of a[n] inmate who was designated as a gang

member.” (Id. at 2-3.)

On May 31, 2006, plaintiff filed a request for modification of the scheduling order

to give him an opportunity to file a dispositive motion. It is unclear whether further motion

practice will lead to resolution of this case by summary judgment. However, good cause

appearing, both parties will be given one final period of forty-five days in which to file crossmotions for summary judgment. 

On May 16, 2006, plaintiff filed a request for ten witness subpoena forms. 

Plaintiff has not provided any information about the witnesses he intends to subpoena in this

action. Moreover, the parties have not yet filed pretrial statements, nor has the court issued a

pretrial or reset this matter for jury trial. For these reasons, plaintiff’s request for subpoena forms

will be denied without prejudice to their renewal, as appropriate, at a later stage of these

proceedings.

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

1. Plaintiff’s May 16, 2006 request for subpoena forms is denied without

prejudice; 

2. Plaintiff’s May 31, 2006 request for an extension of time to file a dispositive

motion is granted; and

3. The parties are granted forty-five days from the date of this order in which to

file and serve cross-motions for summary judgment. 

DATED: June 13, 2006.

12/hunt0435.36(2) 

Case 2:04-cv-00435-LKK -JFM Document 50 Filed 06/14/06 Page 2 of 2