Scally v. Flores ( 2022 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 TONY EUGENE SCALLY, Case No.: 22cv0182-DMS-MDD 12 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING AS MOOT 13 v. PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT 14 CORRECTIONAL OFFICERS A. FLORES and E. VEGA, 15 [ECF No. 24] Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff is a prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with a 18 First Amended Complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (ECF No. 7). Before 19 the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment arguing that 20 Defendants failed to timely respond to Plaintiff’s complaint by September 6, 21 2022. (ECF No. 24). 22 On September 2, 2022, Defendants responded to Plaintiff’s complaint by 23 filing a Motion to Dismiss pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24 12(b)(6). (See ECF No. 20). Defendants are entitled to file a motion to 25 dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b) in lieu of an answer. See, e.g., Gabor v. 26 Seligmann, 222 F. App’x 577, 579 (9th Cir. 2007). Accordingly, the Court 1 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: September 13, 2022 Vitel bs. [ Hon. Mitchell D. Dembin 4 United States Magistrate Judge 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27