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.

Arvie B. Carroll v. James A. Yates

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA


June 5, 2012

ARVIE B. CARROLL,
PLAINTIFF,
v.
JAMES A. YATES, ET AL.,
DEFENDANTS.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Sheila K. Oberto United States Magistrate Judge

ORDER DISCHARGING ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE AND EXTENDING APPLICATION OF DISCOVERY AND SCHEDULING ORDER TO DEFENDANT SOTO (Docs. 42 and 59)

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF THIRTY DAYS WITHIN WHICH TO RESPOND TO REQUEST FOR SUBSTITUTION OF T. SOTO AKA T. BROWN FOR E. SOTO AKA J. MASUTA (Doc. 62)

Plaintiff Arvie B. Carroll, a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on April 9, 2010. On May 30, 2012, the Court ordered Defendant Soto to show cause why default should not be entered against her for failing to file a timely response to Plaintiff's complaint after waiving service of the summons and complaint. Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(d), 12(a)(1)(A)(ii), 55(a).

On June 4, 2012, Jamilah Masuta aka Esther Soto, a licensed vocational nurse, filed a response stating that she mistakenly signed the waiver and that Toni Brown aka Toni Soto, a phlebotomist or specialized lab technician, is the correct defendant in this case. Concurrently, J. Masuta aka E. Soto filed a request to substitute T. Brown aka T. Soto in her place.

Based on this response, the order to show cause is discharged, and application of the discovery and scheduling order filed on February 2, 2012, is extended to T. Soto, who concurrently filed an answer complaint. Plaintiff has thirty days from the date of service of this order to file a response, if any, to E. Soto's request to formally substitute T. Soto as the correct defendant in this action. If no objection is filed, the substitution will be granted in light of the fact that Plaintiff clearly identifies Soto as a lab technician in his complaint.*fn1

Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The order to show cause, filed on May 30, 2012, is DISCHARGED in its entirety;

2. Application of the discovery and scheduling order, filed on February 2, 2012, is extended to T. Soto; and

3. Plaintiff has thirty (30) days from the date of service of this order within which to file a response, if any, to E. Soto's request to substitute T. Soto as the proper party.

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.