K'napp v. Adams et al

Filing 115

ORDER Closing Discovery; ORDER for Defendants to File Oppositions or Notices of Non-Opposition to Plaintiff's Four Motions to Compel, by January 24, 2014; ORDER Extending Deadline to File Pretrial Dispositive Motions, for All Parties, signed by Magistrate Judge Gary S. Austin on 12/6/13. Pretrial Dispositive Motions Deadline: 4/30/2014. (Verduzco, M)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ERIC CHARLES RODNEY K’NAPP, 12 Plaintiff, 13 14 1:06-cv-01701-LJO-GSA-PC ORDER CLOSING DISCOVERY vs. ORDER FOR DEFENDANTS TO FILE OPPOSITIONS OR NOTICES OF NONOPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF’S FOUR MOTIONS TO COMPEL, BY JANUARY 24, 2014 (Docs. 108, 109, 110, 113.) D. G. ADAMS, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 ORDER EXTENDING DEADLINE TO FILE PRETRIAL DISPOSITIVE MOTIONS, FOR ALL PARTIES (Doc. 98.) 17 18 19 New Deadline for Filing Pretrial Dispositive Motions: 20 April 30, 2014 21 22 23 I. BACKGROUND Eric Charles Rodney K=napp (APlaintiff@) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with this 24 civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. ' 1983. 25 commencing this action on November 22, 2006. (Doc. 1.) This action now proceeds on the 26 Second Amended Complaint filed by Plaintiff on November 13, 2008, against defendants 27 Warden Derral G. Adams, Lieutenant (ALt.@) E. Smith, Lt. J. T. Tucker, Associate Warden S. 28 Sherman, and D. Selvy (Classification Services Representative), for retaliating against Plaintiff 1 Plaintiff filed the Complaint 1 by confining him in Ad-Seg under false pretenses and transferring him to another prison, and 2 against defendants K. Motty, Sgt. C. Pugliese, Lt. Smith, R. Guerrero, Appeals Coordinator 3 Cooper, Appeals Coordinator V. R. Garcia, Appeals Coordinator R. Hall, and Does 1-5 4 (Mailroom Workers) for interfering with his right to send mail in violation of the First 5 Amendment.1 (Doc. 16.) 6 On January 4, 2013, the court issued a Scheduling Order establishing pretrial deadlines 7 for the parties, including a deadline of September 4, 2013 to complete discovery. (Doc. 98.) 8 The discovery deadline has not been extended; however, Defendants requested and were 9 granted two extensions of time to respond to Plaintiff’s Requests for Admissions, causing their 10 responses to be due after the discovery deadline had expired. (Docs. 103, 105, 106, 107.) 11 Now pending are four motions to compel filed by Plaintiff: 12 (1) On September 23, 2013, Plaintiff filed a motion to compel Defendants to 13 produce documents in response to Plaintiff’s First Request for Production of 14 Documents. (Doc. 108.); 15 (2) On October 28, 2013, Plaintiff filed a motion for the court to deem all 16 challenged statements in Plaintiff First Request for Admissions admitted, or in 17 the alternative, to compel Defendants to make further responses to Plaintiff’s 18 First Request for Admissions. (Doc. 109.); 19 (3) On November 4, 2013, Plaintiff filed a motion for the court to deem all 20 challenged statements in Plaintiff Second Request for Admissions admitted, or 21 in the alternative, to compel Defendants to make further responses to Plaintiff’s 22 Second Request for Admissions. (Doc. 110.); and 23 24 25 26 27 28 1 On March 12, 2012, Plaintiff’s claims for retaliation based on allegations that defendants (1) denied him indigent correspondence supplies, (2) delayed his mail, (3) obstructed his outgoing mail, (4) denied him all but the May 2005 issue of his subscription of Prison Legal News, (5) issued a false disciplinary write-up against Plaintiff for having a clothesline inside his cell, and (6) instructed CDCR personnel at SATF to limit Plaintiff to a sixtyminute non-contact visit with a visitor who had come over 250 miles to see him, were dismissed by the Court based on Plaintiff=s failure to exhaust remedies before filing suit. (Doc. 88.) The Court also dismissed defendants Meaders, Cuevas, and Johnson from this action, based on Plaintiff’s failure to exhaust remedies for the claims against them before filing suit. (Id.) All other claims and defendants, other than those listed above, were dismissed from this action by the Court on August 17, 2009, based on Plaintiff=s failure to state a claim. (Doc. 29.) 2 1 (4) On November 25, 2013, Plaintiff filed a motion for the court to deem all 2 challenged statements in Plaintiff Third Request for Admissions admitted, or in 3 the alternative, to compel Defendants to make further responses to Plaintiff’s 4 Third Request for Admissions. (Doc. 113.) 5 Defendants have not file oppositions or any other response to the pending motions to 6 compel. 7 II. DISCOVERY IS CLOSED 8 Discovery is now closed in this action. The deadline for the completion of discovery, 9 including the filing of motions to compel, established by the court’s Scheduling Order of 10 January 4, 2013, expired on September 4, 2013. (Doc. 98.) In light of the fact that Defendants 11 were granted two extensions of time to respond to Plaintiff’s Requests for Admissions, causing 12 their responses to be due after the September 3, 2013 deadline, the court shall accept Plaintiff’s 13 four late motions to compel and deem them timely. However, no further motions to compel 14 shall be accepted as timely in this action, and the parties are precluded from conducting further 15 discovery. 16 III. OPPOSITON TO MOTIONS TO COMPEL 17 Defendants have not filed any opposition or other response to Plaintiff’s four pending 18 motions to compel. At this juncture, Defendants shall be required to file an opposition, or 19 notice of non-opposition, to each of Plaintiff’s four motions. Defendants shall be granted until 20 January 24, 2014 to file their responses. The court also finds good cause to extend the deadline 21 for filing dispositive motions, for all parties, until April 30, 2014. 22 IV. CONCLUSION 23 Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 24 1. Discovery in this action is now closed; 25 2. Defendants are required to file an opposition, or notice of non-opposition, to 26 each of Plaintiff’s four pending motions to compel discussed above, by January 27 24, 2014; 28 3 1 3. 2 The deadline for filing pretrial dispositive motions is extended to April 30, 2014, for all parties to this action; and 3 4. 4 All other provisions of the court’s Scheduling Order issued on January 4, 2013, remain the same. 5 6 7 8 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: 9 10 11 December 6, 2013 /s/ Gary S. Austin UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE DEAC_Signature-END: 6i0kij8d 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 4

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?