(PC) Huffman v. Batra ( 2020 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 WILLIAM RAY HUFFMAN, Case No. 1:19-cv-00655-DAD-BAM (PC) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S “MOTION TO DISREGARD FILING” AS MOOT AND 13 v. CONSTRUING AS OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ MOTIONS TO DISMISS 14 BATRA, et al., (ECF No. 35) 15 Defendants. FOURTEEN (14) DAY DEADLINE 16 17 Plaintiff William Ray Huffman (“Plaintiff”) is a civil detainee proceeding pro se and in 18 forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Individuals detained 19 pursuant to the California Welfare and Institutions Code § 6600 et seq. are considered civil 20 detainees and are not prisoners within the meaning of the Prison Litigation Reform Act. Page v. 21 Torrey, 201 F.3d 1136, 1140 (9th Cir. 2000). This action proceeds on Plaintiff’s first amended 22 complaint against Defendants Batra, Withrow, and Hamerick for denial of medical care in 23 violation of the substantive component of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. 24 On October 13, 2020, Defendants Hamerick and Withrow filed a motion to dismiss on the 25 ground that this action is barred by the doctrines of collateral estoppel and res judicata. (ECF No. 26 30.) On November 6, 2020 Defendant Batra filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings on the 27 same basis. (ECF No. 31.) Following Plaintiff’s failure to respond to the motions to dismiss, on 28 December 14, 2020 the Court ordered Plaintiff to file an opposition or statement of non- 1 opposition to the pending motions to dismiss. (ECF No. 34.) 2 On December 23, 2020, Plaintiff filed a response which was docketed as a “Motion to 3 Disregard Filing.” (ECF No. 35.) Upon review of the document, it appears Plaintiff is attempting 4 to file his opposition to the motions to dismiss, rather than a motion. As such, the Plaintiff’s 5 “motion” is denied as moot. The Court will construe the filing as Plaintiff’s oppositions to 6 Defendants’ pending motions to dismiss and will reset the briefing schedule. 7 Accordingly, Plaintiff’s “Motion to Disregard Filing,” (ECF No. 35), is HEREBY 8 DENIED as moot, and shall be construed as Plaintiff’s opposition to Defendants’ motions to 9 dismiss, (ECF Nos 30, 31). Defendants’ replies, if any, shall be filed within fourteen (14) days 10 from the date of service of this order. 11 IT IS SO ORDERED. 12 13 Dated: December 28, 2020 /s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe _ UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28