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)
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?