Gipson

(PC) Armenta v. Gipson

Good Law
United States District Court, Eastern District of CaliforniaJanuary 22, 20242:22-cv-00737California545 words

Opinion

Trial Court Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 RICHARD ARMENTA, No. 2:22-cv-00737-WBS-EFB (PC) Plaintiff, v. ORDER CONNIE GIPSON, et al., Defendants. 16 Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding without counsel in this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action. He has informed the court of his intent to proceed on his first amended complaint (“FAC”), ECF No. 16. ECF No. 79. Defendants Gipson, Johnson, Soto, Trenda, Oakes, Hicks, Kibler, Hall, Peery, and Benavidez answered the FAC on October 29, 2023. ECF No. 71. Plaintiff moves to strike the answer as untimely. ECF No. 73. Under the court’s service order, defendants had 60 days from the date that they filed their Notice of E-Service Waiver to answer or otherwise respond to the complaint. ECF No. 18 at 6. The notice was filed on January 17, 2023, giving defendants until March 20, 2023 to respond. ECF No. 22. ////

1 Three other defendants – Castaneda, Casillas, and Garcia – have yet to be served. On March…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.