Adrian Juan Lloyd v. D. Castillo, et al.

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ADRIAN JUAN LLOYD, Case No.: 1:20-cv-00683-JLT-CDB (PC) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER RE PLAINTIFF’S FILING OF DECEMBER 4, 2025 13 v. (Doc. 85) 14 D. CASTILLO, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff Adrian Juan Lloyd proceeds pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights case 18 pursuant to 42 U.S.C. section 1983. This action proceeds on Plaintiff’s First Amendment free 19 exercise of religion claims against Defendants Castillo and Anderson. 20 I. INTRODUCTION 21 On April 7, 2025, the Court issued its Discovery and Scheduling Order. (Doc. 80.) 22 Relevant here, the deadline for the filing of dispositive motions was set for February 17, 2026. 23 (Id. at 1, 3.) 24 On January 8, 2026, Plaintiff filed a document titled “Clarification on Dispositive 25 Motion.” (Doc. 87.) 26 II. DISCUSSION 27 Plaintiff states he “doesn’t know what a dispositive motion is” and asks the Court to let him “know what it is” because he “doesn’t want to be in violation of the February 17, 2026 1 | deadline.” (Doc. 87.) 2 A dispositive motion refers to a motion for summary judgment addressing the merits of a 3 | party’s claims and/or defenses. Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure concerns such 4 | summary judgment motions. Additionally, this Court’s Local Rules set forth requirements 5 || concerning summary judgment motions. See Local Rule 260. Plaintiff is encouraged to review 6 | Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Local Rule 260 to familiarize himself with 7 || their requirements. In the event Defendants elect to file a motion for summary judgment,! or 8 | should Plaintiff elect to file a motion for summary judgment, all appliable Local Rules, including 9 | those pertaining generally to prisoner motions (see Local Rule 230(/) [21-day opposition 10 | deadline]) and those governing summary judgment motions (Fed. R. Civ. P. 56; Local Rule 260) 11 must be complied with. 12 I. CONCLUSION AND ORDER 13 Accordingly, Plaintiff's motion for clarification (Doc. 87) filed January 8, 2026, is 14 | HEREBY RESOLVED. 15 | ITIS SO ORDERED. 16 Dated: _ January 9, 2026 | br Pr 17 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 | ‘In the event Defendants file a motion for summary judgment on or before the February 17, 2026, deadline, Defendants are required to provide Plaintiff with a Rand warning. See Rand v. Rowland, 154 F.3d 952 (9th Cir. 28 || 1998).