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.

Daniel Arzaga v. Sergeant Reed

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA


June 7, 2012

DANIEL ARZAGA, PLAINTIFF,
v.
SERGEANT REED, DEFENDANT.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Gary S. Austin United States Magistrate Judge

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO DENY DEFENDANT ACCESS TO JURY TRIAL

I. BACKGROUND

(Doc. 31.)

Daniel Arzaga ("Plaintiff") is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff filed the Complaint commencing this action on February 8, 2010. (Doc. 1.) This action now proceeds on the Amended Complaint filed by Plaintiff on March 31, 2011, against defendant Sergeant Reed, for retaliation and unconstitutional conditions of confinement. (Doc. 11.)

On October 24, 2011, Plaintiff filed a motion to deny Defendant access to a jury trial. (Doc. 31.) Defendant has not filed a response to the motion.

II. PLAINTIFF'S MOTION

Plaintiff appears to be requesting resolution of this action in his favor based on a statement made by Defendant in Defendant's September 8, 2011 opposition to Plaintiff's motion for preliminary injunction. Plaintiff refers to page 3, lines 15-22 of the opposition in which Defendant stated: "If Arzaga did exhaust administrative remedies, his claims of unconstitutional conditions of confinement and retaliation against defendant Reed should be granted summary judgment, which Reed intends to move for following Arzaga's deposition." (Doc. 25 at 3:15-22.) Plaintiff suggests that there is no need for a trial in this action because Defendant intends to request summary judgment.

Plaintiff's motion is without merit. It appears that Plaintiff misunderstands Defendant's statement. Plaintiff is advised that if Defendant Reed is granted summary judgment on Plaintiff's claims, the case will be resolved in Defendant Reed's favor, not Plaintiff's. Moreover, there is no basis to resolve this action on Defendant's mere intention to file a motion for summary judgment. Therefore, Plaintiff's motion shall be denied.

III. CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff's motion to deny Defendant access to a jury trial, filed on October 24, 2011, is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

20120607

© 1992-2012 VersusLaw Inc.



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.