Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Jackson v. CDCR Employees

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA


February 4, 2010

FATEEM L. JACKSON, PLAINTIFF,
v.
CDCR EMPLOYEES, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Sandra M. Snyder United States Magistrate Judge

ORDER DENYING MOTION AS PREMATURE (Doc. 37)

Plaintiff Fateem L. Jackson, a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on September 27, 2007. This action is proceeding on Plaintiff's amended complaint, filed June 24, 2008, against Defendants Selbach, Rubin, Ortiz, Payan, Pantoja, Wood, Yoder, Fernandez, Carrasco, and Zanchi for violating Plaintiff's rights under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution.

Defendants Selbach, Rubin, Payan, Pantoja, Wood, Yoder, Carrasco, and Zanchi waived service and filed a motion to dismiss on November 23, 2009, but the United States Marshal was unable to identify and serve Defendants Ortiz and Fernandez. On February 1, 2010, Plaintiff filed a motion seeking leave to conduct discovery to gather further information so that Defendants Ortiz and Fernandez may be served with process.

Plaintiff's claims against Defendants Ortiz and Fernandez arise from the same events as his claims against Defendants Selbach, Rubin, Payan, Pantoja, Wood, Yoder, Carrasco, and Zanchi. Therefore, resolution of Defendants Selbach, Rubin, Payan, Pantoja, Wood, Yoder, Carrasco, and Zanchi's motion to dismiss for failure to exhaust and on qualified immunity grounds will affect whether or not Plaintiff's claims against Ortiz and Fernandez remain viable.*fn1 If the motion to dismiss is granted based on Plaintiff's failure to exhaust or because Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity, Plaintiff's claims against all of the named defendants will be dismissed. If the motion is denied, Defendants Selbach, Rubin, Payan, Pantoja, Wood, Yoder, Carrasco, and Zanchi will be directed to file an answer, at which point a scheduling order will be issued, allowing Plaintiff to initiate discovery and submit further information regarding Defendants Ortiz and Fernandez.

Because the continued viability of Plaintiff's claims against Defendants Ortiz and Fernandez is dependent upon resolution of Defendants Selbach, Rubin, Payan, Pantoja, Wood, Yoder, Carrasco, and Zanchi's pending motion to dismiss, Plaintiff's motion to open discovery at this juncture to obtain further information on Defendants Ortiz and Fernandez is premature and is HEREBY ORDERED DENIED on that ground.

IT IS SO ORDERED.


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.