(PS) Gray III v. Greenwood

E.D. California

(PS) Gray III v. Greenwood

DecidedJuly 2, 2025

Docket2:24-cv-01401

StatusUnknown

This text of (PS) Gray III v. Greenwood ((PS) Gray III v. Greenwood) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, E.D. California primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

(PS) Gray III v. Greenwood, (E.D. Cal. 2025).

Pincite

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 KENNETH WAYNE GRAY, III, No. 2:24-cv-01401 DC AC 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 HUNTER GREENWOOD, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff is proceeding in pro se, and this action is accordingly referred to the undersigned 18 for all pre-trial matters pursuant to Local Rule 302(c)(21). Defendants filed a motion to dismiss 19 some of plaintiff’s claims and noticed the motion to be heard on July 23, 2025. ECF Nos. 15, 18. 20 Plaintiff opposed the motion (ECF No. 22) and filed a separate motion for leave to file an 21 Amended Complaint. ECF No. 23. Defendants replied, acknowledging the motion for leave to 22 amend. ECF No. 24. 23 As defendants correctly recognize, leave to amend is to be liberally allowed for plaintiffs 24 proceeding in pro se at this early stage of proceedings. Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a). The court has 25 reviewed all of the documents, and finds that it is in the interest of justice and judicial economy 26 for the motion for leave to amend (ECF No. 23) to be GRANTED, and the motion to dismiss 27 //// 28 //// 1 || (ECF No. 15) to be denied, without prejudice, as MOOT.! Plaintiff is encouraged to review the 2 || motion to dismiss and to file an amended complaint that attempts to cure any viable issues raised 3 || in that motion. 4 Accordingly, in light of plaintiffs pro se status and the early stage of this case, the motion 5 || to amend (ECF No. 23) is GRANTED and plaintiff shall file a First Amended Complaint by 6 || August 4, 2025. The motion to dismiss (ECF No. 15) is DENIED without prejudice as MOOT 7 || and the hearing date currently set for July 23, 2025 is VACATED. 8 IT IS SO ORDERED. 9 || DATED: July 1, 2025 ~ 10 Ahan Clone ALLISON CLAIRE 11 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 || | Denial of defendants’ motion to dismiss as moot, without prejudice, is a non-dispositive determination and one of the “quintessential housekeeping matters” within the magistrate judge’s 28 || jurisdiction. See Bastidas v. Chappell, 791 F.3d 1155, 1165 (9th Cir. 2015).

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 KENNETH WAYNE GRAY, III, No. 2:24-cv-01401 DC AC 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 HUNTER GREENWOOD, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff is proceeding in pro se, and this action is accordingly referred to the undersigned 18 for all pre-trial matters pursuant to Local Rule 302(c)(21). Defendants filed a motion to dismiss 19 some of plaintiff’s claims and noticed the motion to be heard on July 23, 2025. ECF Nos. 15, 18. 20 Plaintiff opposed the motion (ECF No. 22) and filed a separate motion for leave to file an 21 Amended Complaint. ECF No. 23. Defendants replied, acknowledging the motion for leave to 22 amend. ECF No. 24. 23 As defendants correctly recognize, leave to amend is to be liberally allowed for plaintiffs 24 proceeding in pro se at this early stage of proceedings. Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a). The court has 25 reviewed all of the documents, and finds that it is in the interest of justice and judicial economy 26 for the motion for leave to amend (ECF No. 23) to be GRANTED, and the motion to dismiss 27 //// 28 //// 1 || (ECF No. 15) to be denied, without prejudice, as MOOT.! Plaintiff is encouraged to review the 2 || motion to dismiss and to file an amended complaint that attempts to cure any viable issues raised 3 || in that motion. 4 Accordingly, in light of plaintiffs pro se status and the early stage of this case, the motion 5 || to amend (ECF No. 23) is GRANTED and plaintiff shall file a First Amended Complaint by 6 || August 4, 2025. The motion to dismiss (ECF No. 15) is DENIED without prejudice as MOOT 7 || and the hearing date currently set for July 23, 2025 is VACATED. 8 IT IS SO ORDERED. 9 || DATED: July 1, 2025 ~ 10 Ahan Clone ALLISON CLAIRE 11 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 || | Denial of defendants’ motion to dismiss as moot, without prejudice, is a non-dispositive determination and one of the “quintessential housekeeping matters” within the magistrate judge’s 28 || jurisdiction. See Bastidas v. Chappell, 791 F.3d 1155, 1165 (9th Cir. 2015).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

(PS) Gray III v. Greenwood, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ps-gray-iii-v-greenwood-caed-2025.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack