Rhodes v. Robinson, et al
Filing
275
ORDER Regarding Discovery and Scheduling Order, signed by Magistrate Judge Dennis L. Beck on 9/24/12: The Discovery and Scheduling Order, issued August 9, 2012, is applicable to Defendants Chapman, Jones, Metzen, Todd, and Wenciker. (Hellings, J)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
KAVIN M. RHODES,
12
Plaintiff,
13
Case No. 1:02-cv-05018-LJO-DLB PC
ORDER REGARDING DISCOVERY AND
SCHEDULING OR DER
v.
14
ROBINSON, et al.,
15
Defendants.
16
17
Plaintiff Kavin M. Rhodes (“Plaintiff”) is a prisoner in the custody of the California
18
Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. Plaintiff is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis
19
in this civil action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action is proceeding on Plaintiff’s amended
20
complaint, filed June 9, 2011, against Defendants Wenciker1, Pazo, Tidwell, Chapman, Lopez, K.
21
Todd, Metzen, and Garza for retaliation in violation of the First Amendment, and against Defendants
22
Garza and Jones for excessive force in violation of the Eighth Amendment. The United States
23
Marshal was directed to effect service as to Defendants Chapman, Garza, Jones, Metzen, Todd, and
24
Wenciker. On September 21, 2012, Defendants Chapman, Jones, Metzen, Todd, and Wenciker filed
25
an answer. On August 9, 2012, the Court had issued a discovery and scheduling order in this action.
26
In the interest of judicial economy, the Court will set the same discovery and schedule deadlines for
27
Defendants Chapman, Jones, Metzen, Todd, and Wenciker.
28
1
Plaintiff had named the Defendant as “Wenneker.”
1
1
2
Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that the Discovery and Scheduling Order, issued
August 9, 2012, is applicable to Defendants Chapman, Jones, Metzen, Todd, and Wenciker.
3
4
IT IS SO ORDERED.
5
Dated:
/s/ Dennis
September 24, 2012
L. Beck
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
6
DEAC_Signature-END:
7
3b142a
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?