Case: Stanard v. Dy

2:19-cv-01400 | U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington

Filed Date: Aug. 30, 2019

Closed Date: Feb. 24, 2025

Clearinghouse coding complete

Case Summary

This case arose out of a federal prison's response to a pretrial inmate's request for Hepatitis C treatment. On October 17, 2019, the inmate filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington. The plaintiff brought a Bivens claim against multiple doctors and administrators for the Federal Detention Center in SeaTac, Washington (FDC SeaTac). The plaintiff alleged that the defendants (1) violated the Eighth Amendment by denying him medical treatment, and (2) violated the Fifth Amendment by discriminating against him because of his status as a pre-trial detainee. The plaintiff sought compensatory and punitive damages. The plaintiff appeared pro se in the trial court, and he was represented on appeal by the Northwestern Pritzker School of Law Bluhm Legal Clinic and Rights Behind Bars. The case was assigned to Magistrate Judge Michelle L. Peterson and Chief Judge Ricardo Martinez.

The plaintiff filed an amended complaint on February 17, 2020. In his amended complaint, the plaintiff alleged that he first sought treatment for his pre-existing Hepatitis C diagnosis at FDC SeaTac in early 2018. The plaintiff's request was purportedly denied because (1) he was a pre-trial detainee, and (2) the test used to assess liver fibrosis and cirrhosis was not within the range required for him to receive priority treatment. The plaintiff then pursued his requests through the Bureau of Prisons administrative remedy process. In response to an informal resolution form, the plaintiff was informed that he was "a treatment Priority Level 3 and a pre-trial inmate, [and] the Bureau of Prisons... is currently focusing on treating designated Priority 1 & 2 Level inmates."

In May 2018, the plaintiff filed a formal request for an administrative remedy. He was advised that the BOP was focusing on treating priority level one and two inmates, and they would continue to monitor the plaintiff's health. The plaintiff subsequently filed two additional appeals. While those appeals were pending, the plaintiff was transferred to a different facility, and he began to receive Hepatitis C treatment in late 2018. Ultimately, the BOP concluded that the plaintiff received adequate care despite the delay in treatment.

In his amended complaint, the plaintiff brought three claims. First, he alleged that the denial of Hepatitis C treatment based on his status as a pre-trial inmate violated his Fifth Amendment equal protection rights. Second, he alleged that the defendants' failure to address his medical needs as a pre-trial inmate violated the Fifth Amendment's Due Process Clause. Third, he alleged that the defendants were deliberately indifferent to his medical needs, in violation of the Eighth Amendment. The plaintiff sought $30 million in damages from five federal officials.

On March 10, 2021, Judge Peterson recommended that the court grant the defendants' motion to dismiss the complaint. See 2021 WL 1341082. The report and recommendation noted that Ziglar v. Abbasi established a two-step inquiry for determining whether a Bivens claim can proceed. See 582 U.S. 120 (2017). First, a court must determine whether the claim arises in a "new Bivens context." If it does, then the court should not extend Bivens to the new context unless (1) the plaintiff does not have any other adequate alternative remedy, and (2) there are no "special factors" suggesting that Congress is better suited to authorize money damages.

Judge Peterson first acknowledged that the plaintiff had been convicted by the time the claims arose in this case. Thus, the Eighth Amendment was implicated, and the Fifth Amendment due process right was not. Second, the report determined that the Eighth Amendment claim and the Fifth Amendment equal protection claim arose in a "new Bivens context." Third, the court found that the plaintiff had alternate remedies available to him (i.e., BOP administrative remedies), thus precluding relief under Bivens. The court went on to note that even if relief were available under Bivens, the plaintiff failed to allege facts demonstrating that the defendants were "deliberately indifferent" to his medical needs.

On July 1, 2021, Chief Judge Martinez adopted Judge Peterson's recommendation and dismissed the case with prejudice. See 2021 WL 2709236. The plaintiff filed an appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The appeal was heard by Circuit Judge Jacqueline Nguyen, Circuit Judge Andrew Hurwitz, and District Judge Dean Pregerson.

The Ninth Circuit reversed the District Court's order dismissing the case on December 11, 2023. See 88 F.4th 811. As to the plaintiff's Eighth Amendment claim, the court found that the claim did not arise in a "new Bivens context." Specifically, the plaintiff's claims were sufficiently comparable to the Eighth Amendment claims that the U.S. Supreme Court recognized in Carlson v. Green, 446 U.S. 14 (1980). As to the plaintiff's Fifth Amendment equal protection claim, the court affirmed the District Court's dismissal. That claim arose in a new context, and the existence of alternative remedial structures precluded relief under Bivens. The case was remanded to the District Court for further proceedings.

On May 10, 2024, defendants filed a renewed motion to dismiss, again asserting that the plaintiff failed to state a claim for relief under the Eighth Amendment. The plaintiff then filed a motion for summary judgment on May 21, 2024, after which the court ordered that the plaintiff respond to the motion to dismiss. On June 10, 2024, the plaintiff filed an application for court-appointed counsel.

On February 24, 2025, the Court dismissed Plaintiff’s amended complaint with prejudice. The Court found that Plaintiff had not demonstrated deliberate indifference or morally unacceptable treatment in conscious disregard of risks by Defendants. The record indicated that Defendants operated reasonably given Plaintiff’s test results and BOP policy, which did not mandate additional treatment.

Summary Authors

Andrew Del Vecchio (3/17/2024)

Kyle O'Hara (6/24/2024)

Amanda Feldman (3/26/2026)

People

For PACER's information on parties and their attorneys, see: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/16151402/parties/stanard-v-dy/

Judge(s)

Martinez, Ricardo S. (Washington)

Attorney for Plaintiff

Director, Oren Nimni,

Stanard, Robert Allen (Washington)

Attorney for Defendant

Attorney, Tania M.

Attorney, Matt Waldrop,

Judge(s)

Martinez, Ricardo S. (Washington)

Attorney for Plaintiff

Director, Oren Nimni,

Stanard, Robert Allen (Washington)

Wang, Xiao

Weiss, Samuel

Attorney for Defendant

Attorney, Tania M.

Attorney, Matt Waldrop,

Waldrop, Matt (Washington)

Attorney Contact Information via CourtListener

Documents in the Clearinghouse

Documents in this case

6 2:19-cv-01400	Civil Rights Complaint Pursuant to	Oct. 17, 2019	Oct. 17, 2019 Complaint
14 2:19-cv-01400	Amended Civil Rights Complaint	Feb. 18, 2020	Feb. 18, 2020 Complaint
35 2:19-cv-01400	Order Denying Plaintiffs' Second Motion for Appointment Counsel	Jan. 28, 2021	Jan. 28, 2021 Order/Opinion
36 2:19-cv-01400	Report and Recommendation	March 10, 2021	March 10, 2021 Magistrate Report/Recommendation 2021 WL 1341082
39 2:19-cv-01400	Order Granting in Part Plaintiff's Motion for Extension of Time and Denying Plaintiff's Motion for Clarification and Leave to Amend	April 9, 2021	April 9, 2021 Order/Opinion 2021 WL 1338551
44 2:19-cv-01400	Order Adopting Report and Recommendation and Dismissing Action	July 1, 2021	July 1, 2021 Order/Opinion 2021 WL 2709236
21-35582	Opinion U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit	Dec. 11, 2023	Dec. 11, 2023 Order/Opinion
68 2:19-cv-01400	Order Granting Motion to Dismiss Stanard v. Dy et al.	Feb. 24, 2025	Feb. 24, 2025 Order/Opinion 2025 WL 593023
69 2:19-cv-01400	Judgment in a Civil Case Stanard v. Dy et al.	Feb. 24, 2025	Feb. 24, 2025 Order/Opinion

show / hide documents

Resources

Resources related to this case
Title	Description		External URL Date / External URL
JAMA Viewpoint: The Carceral-Community Cascade and HCV Elimination Matthew J. Akiyama, MD, MSc; Tessa Bialek, JD; Raphael Simonson, BA	The article proposes a sector-wide approach to expanding Hepatitis C testing and direct acting antiviral treatment, guided by the HCV carceral-community cascade and intended to leverage the criminal …	November 2024	Nov. 14, 2024 https://jamanetwork.com/...
White Paper: Policies for Expanding Hepatitis C Testing and Treatment in United States Prisons and Jails Tessa Bialek and Matthew J. Akiyama, M.D., M.Sc.	This white paper proposes policies for expanding access to Hepatitis C (HCV) testing and treatment in United States jails and prisons. In recent years, dozens of lawsuits across the country have sou…	April 2023	April 19, 2023

show / hide resources

Docket

See docket on RECAP: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/16151402/stanard-v-dy/

Last updated July 28, 2026, 7:47 p.m.

ECF Number	Date	Description	Link
1	Aug. 30, 2019	APPLICATION to Proceed In Forma Pauperis by Plaintiff Robert A Stanard. (Attachments: # 1 PROPOSED 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights Complaint, # 2 Exhibit, # 3 Prison Trust Account)(ST) (Entered: 09/04/2019)	RECAP
3	Sept. 4, 2019	LETTER sent re IFP deficiency; - The "Acknowledgment and Authorization" section of the IFP (3rd page) needs to completed and returned to the court. A copy of the IFP is enclosed for your convenience. Filer has until 10/4/2019 to correct. (cc: plaintiff via USPS w/original IFP form submitted) (ST) (Entered: 09/04/2019)	RECAP
4	Sept. 13, 2019	MOTION for Leave to Proceed In Forma Pauperis before Judge Peterson, filed by Robert Allen Stanard. (Attachments: # 1 PROPOSED 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights Complaint, # 2 Exhibit, # 3 Declaration of Lonnie Lillard in Support of Complaint, # 4 Request to Attach Lonnie Lillard Declaration to Complaint, # 5 Prison Trust Account)(ST) (Entered: 09/16/2019)	RECAP
	Sept. 13, 2019	IFP deficiency corrected (ST)
	Sept. 16, 2019	IFP Deficiency Corrected
5	Oct. 17, 2019	ORDER GRANTING APPLICATION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS AND DIRECTING INSTITUTION TO CALCULATE, COLLECT, AND FORWARD PAYMENTS (cc: Plaintiff, WAWD Finance, Sheridan Finance Dept) by Hon. Michelle L. Peterson. (SG) (Entered: 10/17/2019)	RECAP
6	Oct. 17, 2019	1983 PRISONER CIVIL COMPLAINT against All Defendants, filed by Robert Allen Stanard. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit, # 2 Declaration, # 3 Declaration)(SG) (Entered: 10/17/2019)	Clearinghouse
7	Oct. 17, 2019	ORDER DECLINING TO SERVE COMPLAINT AND GRANTING LEAVE TO AMEND re 6 Complaint filed by Robert Allen Stanard, by Hon. Michelle L. Peterson. Plaintiff is granted leave to file an amended complaint curing the noted deficiencies within thirty (30) days of the date on which this Order is signed. (cc: Order and Complaint form to Plaintiff via USPS)(SG) Modified on 10/18/2019 to correct typos(MET). (Entered: 10/17/2019)	RECAP
	Oct. 17, 2019	Set/Reset Deadlines
	Oct. 17, 2019	Set/Reset Deadlines: Amended Pleadings due by 11/18/2019, (SG)
8	Nov. 4, 2019	MOTION for Extension of Time re 7 Order, filed by Plaintiff Robert Allen Stanard. (ST) (Entered: 11/05/2019)	RECAP
9	Nov. 14, 2019	ORDER granting 8 Motion for Extension of Time signed by Hon. Michelle L. Peterson. (cc: plaintiff via USPS)(ST) (Entered: 11/14/2019)	RECAP
	Nov. 14, 2019	Set/Reset Deadlines
	Nov. 14, 2019	Set/Reset Deadlines: Amended Pleadings due by 12/18/2019. (ST)
	Nov. 27, 2019	Motion Calendar
	Nov. 27, 2019	Amended Complaint due by 12/18/19 re 9 Order on Motion for Extension of Time, 7 Order Declining to Serve Complaint and Granting Leave to Amend.(ELS)
10	Dec. 16, 2019	MOTION for Second Extension of Time to File Amended Complaint, filed by Plaintiff Robert Allen Stanard. (ST) (Entered: 12/17/2019)	RECAP
11	Dec. 23, 2019	ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S SECOND MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE AMENDED COMPLAINT signed by Hon. Michelle L. Peterson 10 Motion for Extension of Time Amended Pleadings due by 1/24/2020, (SG) (Entered: 12/23/2019)	RECAP
12	Jan. 27, 2020	MOTION for Extension of Time re 11 Order, filed by Plaintiff Robert Allen Stanard. (ST) (Entered: 01/28/2020)	RECAP
13	Jan. 29, 2020	ORDER GRANTING 12 PLAINTIFF'S THIRD MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE AMENDED COMPLAINT signed by Hon. Michelle L. Peterson. (cc: plaintiff w/amended complaint form sent via USPS)(ST) (Entered: 01/29/2020)	RECAP
	Jan. 29, 2020	Set/Reset Deadlines
	Jan. 29, 2020	Set/Reset Deadlines: Amended Pleadings due by 2/12/2020, (ST)
14	Feb. 18, 2020	AMENDED 1983 CIVIL RIGHTS COMPLAINT against All Defendants, filed by Robert Allen Stanard.(defendants terminated: K Martinez, Mary Mitchell, and Leen. Defendants added: 2 unknown defendants) (SG) (Entered: 02/19/2020)	Clearinghouse
15	May 13, 2020	ORDER DIRECTING SERVICE by Hon. Michelle L. Peterson. Served by First-Class Mail on 5/20/2020 to: Maria Dy, M.D., Mrs. McDermott, Dan Sproul, J. Baltazar, and Ian Conners. (cc: Plaintiff order and pro se instruction sheet)(SG) (Entered: 05/14/2020)	RECAP
16	Aug. 19, 2020	ORDER DIRECTING CLERK TO EXECUTE 15 SERVICE ORDER by Hon. Michelle L. Peterson. Served by First-Class Mail on 8/19/2020 to Maria Dy; McDermott; Dan Sproul; J Baltazar; Ian Conners. (cc: plaintiff w/pro se instruction sheet and 15 Order via USPS; Attorney General of the United States and Office of the United States Attorney, Western District of Washington via certified mail) (ST) (Entered: 08/19/2020)	RECAP
17	Aug. 24, 2020	RETURN RECEIPT (Green Card) re service by certified mail executed upon US Attorney's Office. (LH) (Entered: 08/26/2020)	RECAP
18	Aug. 31, 2020	RETURN RECEIPT (Green Card) re service by certified mail executed upon United States Attorney General. (PM) (Entered: 09/02/2020)	RECAP
19	Oct. 20, 2020	MOTION for Extension of Time to File Answer re 14 Amended Complaint, filed by Defendants J Baltazar, Ian Conners, Maria Dy, McDermont, Dan Sproul. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order) Noting Date 10/30/2020, (Waldrop, Matt) (Entered: 10/20/2020)	RECAP
20	Oct. 20, 2020	WAIVER OF SERVICE of Summons (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service)(Waldrop, Matt) (Entered: 10/20/2020)	RECAP
21	Oct. 20, 2020	WAIVER OF SERVICE of Summons (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service)(Waldrop, Matt) (Entered: 10/20/2020)	RECAP
22	Oct. 20, 2020	WAIVER OF SERVICE of Summons (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service)(Waldrop, Matt) (Entered: 10/20/2020)	RECAP
23	Oct. 20, 2020	WAIVER OF SERVICE of Summons (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service)(Waldrop, Matt) (Entered: 10/20/2020)	RECAP
25	Oct. 23, 2020	MOTION to Appoint Counsel, filed by Plaintiff Robert Allen Stanard. Noted by Clerk for 11/13/2020. (PM) (Entered: 10/26/2020)	RECAP
24	Oct. 26, 2020	MOTION for Summary Judgment for Failure to Respond to Complaint Within a Reasonable Time, filed by Plaintiff Robert Allen Stanard. Noted by Clerk for 11/20/2020. (PM) (Entered: 10/26/2020)	RECAP
26	Nov. 13, 2020	ORDER denying Plaintiff's 25 Motion for Appointment of Counsel. Signed by Hon. Michelle L. Peterson. (PM) cc: Plaintiff via USPS	RECAP
27	Nov. 13, 2020	ORDER granting the United States' 19 Motion for an extension of the deadline to file a responsive pleading on behalf of Defendants. Defendants shall file their responsive pleading not later than December 21, 2020. Plaintiff's motion for a default judgment (dkt. # 24 ) is STRICKEN as moot. Signed by Hon. Michelle L. Peterson.(PM) cc: Petitioner and U.S. Attorney's Office via USPS	RECAP
28	Dec. 16, 2020	MOTION to Appoint Counsel Due to COVID-19, filed by Plaintiff Robert Allen Stanard. Noted by Clerk for 1/1/2021. (PM) cc: Matt Waldrop via ECF ad hoc (Entered: 12/17/2020)	RECAP
	Dec. 17, 2020	NOTICE re: Motion to Extend Deadline 19 . The appearance of attorney Matt Waldrop is not proper, and notices of electronic filing will not be sent until corrected. Signatures must be in accordance with FRCP 11 and LCR 83.2(a) and must comply with ECF Filing Procedures. (PM) cc: Matt Waldrop via ECF ad hoc
	Dec. 17, 2020	Note re compliance with LCR 83.2 - Attorney Appearance and With
29	Dec. 18, 2020	NOTICE of Appearance by attorney Matt Waldrop on behalf of Defendants J Baltazar, Ian Conners, Maria Dy, Dan Sproul. (Waldrop, Matt) (Entered: 12/18/2020)	RECAP
30	Dec. 21, 2020	MOTION to Dismiss, filed by Defendants J Baltazar, Ian Conners, Maria Dy, Dan Sproul. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order) Noting Date 1/15/2021, (Waldrop, Matt) (Entered: 12/21/2020)	RECAP
31	Dec. 21, 2020	DECLARATION of Matt Waldrop filed by Defendants J Baltazar, Ian Conners, Maria Dy, Dan Sproul re 30 MOTION to Dismiss (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C)(Waldrop, Matt) (Entered: 12/21/2020)	RECAP
32	Jan. 7, 2021	RESPONSE, by Plaintiff Robert Allen Stanard, to 30 MOTION to Dismiss. (PM) (Entered: 01/11/2021)	RECAP
33	Jan. 7, 2021	REQUEST by Plaintiff Robert Allen Stanard for Copy of 32 Response to re 30 MOTION to Dismiss. (PM) (Clerk sent copy of 32 Response to Plaintiff via USPS) (Entered: 01/11/2021)	RECAP
34	Jan. 15, 2021	REPLY, filed by Defendants J Baltazar, Ian Conners, Maria Dy, Dan Sproul, TO RESPONSE to 30 MOTION to Dismiss (Waldrop, Matt) (Entered: 01/15/2021)	RECAP
35	Jan. 28, 2021	ORDER denying Plaintiff's 28 Second Motion for Appointment of Counsel. Signed by Hon. Michelle L. Peterson. (PM) cc: Plaintiff via USPS	Clearinghouse
36	March 10, 2021	REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION re 30 MOTION to Dismiss. Objections should be filed with the Clerk and served upon all parties to this suit within twenty-one (21) days of the date on which this Report and Recommendation is signed. Objections to be noted for the third Friday after they are filed. This matter will be ready for consideration on 4/2/2021. Signed by Hon. Michelle L. Peterson. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order, # 2 Proposed Judgment) (PM) cc: Plaintiff via USPS	Clearinghouse
37	March 13, 2021	MOTION Seeking Clarification and to Amend Complaint, filed by Plaintiff Robert Allen Stanard. Noted by Clerk for 4/2/2021. (PM) (Entered: 03/15/2021)	RECAP
38	March 25, 2021	MOTION for Extension of Time to Object to Report and Recommendations, filed by Plaintiff Robert Allen Stanard. Noted by Clerk for 4/9/2021. (LH) (Entered: 03/26/2021)	RECAP
39	April 9, 2021	ORDER granting in part Plaintiff's 38 Motion for Extension of Time. Plaintiff's Objections to 36 R&R due on or before 4/30/2021. A party filing an objection must note the matter for the Court's consideration 14 days from t he date the objection is filed and served. This matter is noted for 5/3/2021 as ready for consideration if no objection is filed. Plaintiff's 37 Motion for Clarification and Leave to Amend Complaint is DENIED. Signed by Judge Ricardo S. Martinez. (PM) cc: Plaintiff via USPS	Clearinghouse
40	April 26, 2021	OBJECTIONS by Plaintiff Robert Allen Stanard to 36 Report and Recommendation. Noted by Clerk for 5/10/2021 5/7/2021 per 39 Order. (PM) Modified on 5/3/2021 to renote, per direction of chambers. (Entered: 04/28/2021)	RECAP
	May 3, 2021	Noting Date Reset re 40 OBJECTIONS by Plaintiff Robert Allen Stanard to 36 Report and Recommendations: Noting Date 5/10/2021, per 40 Order. (PM)
	May 3, 2021	Set/Reset Motion Noting Date (Public, notice to parties)
41	May 10, 2021	RESPONSE to 40 OBJECTIONS by Plaintiff Robert Allen Stanard to 36 Report and Recommendations,. filed by Defendants J Baltazar, Ian Conners, Maria Dy, Dan Sproul (Waldrop, Matt) (Entered: 05/10/2021)	RECAP
42	June 5, 2021	REPLY by Plaintiff Robert Allen Stanard to 30 MOTION to Dismiss. (PM) (Entered: 06/07/2021)	RECAP
43	June 14, 2021	SURREPLY filed by Defendants J Baltazar, Ian Conners, Maria Dy, McDermont, Dan Sproul re 40 OBJECTIONS by Plaintiff Robert Allen Stanard to 36 Report and Recommendations,., 36 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION re 30 MOTION to Dismiss filed by Maria Dy, J Baltazar, Dan Sproul, Ian Conners, 14 Amended Complaint filed by Robert Allen Stanard. (Waldrop, Matt) (Entered: 06/14/2021)	RECAP
44	July 1, 2021	ORDER ADOPTING 36 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION. Defendants' motion to dismiss, Dkt. # 30 , is GRANTED. Plaintiff's amended complaint and this action are DISMISSED with prejudice. Signed by Judge Ricardo S. Martinez. (MW) (cc: Plaintiff via USPS)	Clearinghouse
45	July 1, 2021	JUDGMENT BY COURT: The Report and Recommendation is approved and adopted. Defendants' motion to dismiss is granted, and Plaintiff's amended complaint and this action are dismissed with prejudice. (MW) (cc: Plaintiff via USPS) (Entered: 07/01/2021)	RECAP
46	July 19, 2021	NOTICE OF APPEAL to Ninth Circuit (21-35582) re 45 Judgment by Court, 44 Order on Report and Recommendation, by Plaintiff Robert Allen Stanard. IFP granted on 10/17/2019. (cc: USCA) (RE) Modified on 7/23/2021 add CCA # (CDA). (Entered: 07/20/2021)	RECAP
47	July 22, 2021	TIME SCHEDULE ORDER ( #21-35582) as to 46 Notice of Appeal filed by Robert Allen Stanard (CDA) (Entered: 07/23/2021)	RECAP
48	Jan. 27, 2022	ORDER OF USCA (21-35582) as to 46 Notice of Appeal filed by Robert Allen Stanard. (RE) (Entered: 01/28/2022)	RECAP
49	Dec. 11, 2023	OPINION OF USCA (21-35582/NOT THE MANDATE) as to 46 Notice of Appeal filed by Robert Allen Stanard. AFFIRMED IN PART AND REVERSED IN PART. (CR) (Entered: 12/13/2023)	RECAP
50	Jan. 23, 2024	Order of USCA	RECAP
51	March 19, 2024	MANDATE OF USCA (21-35582) as to 46 Notice of Appeal filed by Robert Allen Stanard, 49 Opinion of USCA. The judgment of this Court, entered December 11, 2023, takes effect this date. This constitutes the formal mandate of this Court issued pursuant to Rule 41(a) of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure. AFFIRMED IN PART AND REVERSED IN PART. (RE) (Entered: 03/22/2024)	RECAP
52	April 5, 2024	MOTION to Dismiss, filed by Defendants J Baltazar, Ian Conners, Maria Dy, Dan Sproul. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order) Noting Date 5/10/2024, (Waldrop, Matt) (Entered: 04/05/2024)	RECAP
53	May 10, 2024	REPLY, filed by Defendants J Baltazar, Ian Conners, Maria Dy, Dan Sproul, TO RESPONSE to 52 MOTION to Dismiss (Waldrop, Matt) (Entered: 05/10/2024)	RECAP
54	May 21, 2024	MOTION for Summary Judgment, filed by Plaintiff Robert Allen Stanard. Noted by clerk for 6/18/2024. (SB) (Entered: 05/21/2024)	RECAP
55	May 21, 2024	AFFIDAVIT of Robert Allen Stanard re Plaintiff's 54 MOTION for Summary Judgment. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit) (SB) (Entered: 05/21/2024)	RECAP
56	May 21, 2024	EXHIBITS re 55 Affidavit of Robert Allen Stanard. (SB) (Entered: 05/21/2024)	RECAP
57	May 22, 2024	MINUTE ORDER: The Court DIRECTS Plaintiff to respond to Defendant's Motion to Dismiss no later than 6/6/2024. Defendants may file a Reply to Plaintiff's Response no later than 6/12/2024. Failure to file a Response may result in dismissal. T he Court further finds that Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment is premature given the pending Motion to Dismiss and may be affected by any Court ruling. The Court therefore STRIKES Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment, Dkt. # 54 . Plaintiff is free to refile this Motion if the Court does not grant Defendant's Motion to Dismiss. Authorized by Judge Ricardo S. Martinez. (SB) (cc: Plaintiff via USPS)	RECAP
58	June 10, 2024	MOTION for Extension of Time, filed by Plaintiff Robert Allen Stanard. Noted by clerk for 6/24/2024. (SB) (Entered: 06/11/2024)	RECAP
59	June 10, 2024	APPLICATION for Court-Appointed Counsel, filed by Plaintiff Robert Allen Stanard. Noted by clerk for 7/1/2024. (SB) (Entered: 06/11/2024)	RECAP
60	June 20, 2024	RESPONSE, by Defendants J Baltazar, Ian Conners, Maria Dy, Dan Sproul, to 58 MOTION for Extension of Time. (Waldrop, Matt) (Entered: 06/20/2024)	RECAP
61	June 21, 2024	ORDER granting Plaintiff's 58 Motion for Extension of Time. Plaintiff shall file a Response to Defendant's Motion to Dismiss no later than 7/5/2024. Defendants may file a Reply to Plaintiff's Response no later than 7/19/2024. Failure to file a Response may result in dismissal. Signed by Judge Ricardo S. Martinez. (SB) (cc: Plaintiff via USPS)	RECAP
62	July 8, 2024	Extension of Time-Other	RECAP
63	July 11, 2024	Response to Motion	RECAP
64	July 12, 2024	ORDER granting Plaintiff's 62 Motion for Extension of Time. Plaintiff shall file a Response to Defendant's Motion to Dismiss, Dkt. # 52 , no later than 7/26/2024. Defendants may file a Reply no later than 8/9/2024. Failure to file a Response may result in dismissal. Signed by Judge Ricardo S. Martinez. (SB) (cc: Plaintiff via USPS)	RECAP
65	July 15, 2024	ORDER denying Plaintiff's 59 Motion to Appoint Counsel. Signed by Judge Ricardo S. Martinez. (SB) (cc: Plaintiff via USPS)	RECAP
66	July 30, 2024	Extension of Time-Other	RECAP
67	July 31, 2024	ORDER denying Plaintiff's 66 Motion for Extension of Time. The Court shall consider Defendants' Motion to Dismiss, Dkt. # 52 , with the current filings. Signed by Judge Ricardo S. Martinez. (SB) (cc: Plaintiff via USPS)	RECAP
68	Feb. 24, 2025	ORDER granting Defendants' 52 Motion to Dismiss. Plaintiff's amended Complaint and this action are DISMISSED with prejudice. Signed by Judge Ricardo S. Martinez. (cc: Plaintiff via USPS) (MJV)	Clearinghouse
69	Feb. 24, 2025	Judgment by Court	Clearinghouse