Crayton v. Hedgpeth et al

Filing 232

ORDER SETTING Briefing Schedule, signed by District Judge William Haskell Alsup on 12/14/12.(Hellings, J)

1
2
3
4
5
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

6
7

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
8
9
TIMOTHY CRAYTON,

No. C 08-00621 WHA (PR)

10
ORDER SETTING BRIEFING
SCHEDULE

v.
For the Eastern District of California

United States District Court

Plaintiff,
11
12
13

CORRECTIONAL OFFICER A.
HEDGPETH, et al.,

14
Defendants.
15

/

16
This is a civil rights action filed under 42 U.S.C. 1983 by a California prisoner
17
proceeding pro se. In the court’s May 1, 2012 order, the court found cognizable eight federal
18
claims. Specifically, in Claim 7, plaintiff claimed that, on July 3, 2008, defendants Hedgpeth,
19
Harrington, and Captain Woods were deliberately indifferent to plaintiff’s need for a grab bar.
20
In Claim 8, plaintiff claimed that, on December 9, 2008, and December 11, 2008, defendants
21
Hedgpeth and Harrington were deliberately indifferent to plaintiff’s need for a grab bar. In
22
Claims 10, 11, 12, 13, 16, and 17, plaintiff alleged that other defendants separately, and in
23
groups, violated RICO, and engaged in retaliation and tampering.
24
On August 7, 2012, the court granted defendants’ motion to dismiss misjoined
25
defendants and claims. The court found that Claims 7 and 8, raising claims of deliberate
26
indifference, were properly joined, and could proceed without violating Federal Rules of Civil
27
Procedure 18 or 20. However, the court dismissed Claims 10, 11, 12, 13, 16, and 17 without
28
prejudice to re-filing in a separate lawsuit. Alternatively, the court ordered plaintiff to file a

1

second amended complaint only if he wished to litigate the RICO and/or retaliation and

2

tampering claims instead of the deliberate indifference claims in this lawsuit. Plaintiff filed two

3

requests for an extension of time, and on October 30, 2012, the court granted a final extension

4

of time for plaintiff to file a second amended complaint within thirty days if he so wished. The

5

court informed plaintiff that the failure to file a second amended complaint would result in the

6

court proceeding with only Claims 7 and 8. More than thirty days have passed, and plaintiff

7

has not filed a second amended complaint. Thus, the court will proceed with only Claims 7 and

8

8.

9

11
For the Eastern District of California

United States District Court

10

12
13
14

The parties shall comply with the following deadlines. Because of the age of this case,
requests for extensions of time will be granted only in the most compelling circumstances.
(1) Defendants’ motion for summary judgment must be filed no later than 45 days from
the filing date of this order.
(2) Plaintiff’s opposition to defendants’ motion for summary judgment must be filed no
later than 28 days after defendants’ motion is filed.

15

(3) Defendants must file their reply no later than 14 days thereafter.

16

The motion will be ruled upon without oral argument unless the court orders otherwise

17
18
19
20

at a later date.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: December

14

, 2012.

WILLIAM ALSUP
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

21
22
G:\PRO-SE\WHA\E.D. CAL\CRAYTON621\CRAYTON621sch3.wpd

23
24
25
26
27
28
2