Harrison v. Adams, et al
Filing
173
ORDER Granting Plaintiff's 165 Request to Amend the Initial Scheduling Order and Denying Plaintiff's Request for Service Documents and for Service to be Completed on Additional Defendants signed by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Seng on 11/26/2013. (Flores, E)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
MICHAEL D. HARRISON,
12
13
14
Case No. 1:08-cv-01065-AWI-MJS
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S
REQUEST TO AMEND THE INITIAL
SCHEDULING ORDER
AND
DENYING PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST FOR
SERVICE DOCUMENTS AND FOR
SERVICE TO BE COMPLETED ON
ADDITIONAL DEFENDANTS
Plaintiff,
v.
D. ADAMS, et al.,
15
Defendants.
16
(ECF No. 165)
17
18
19
Plaintiff Michael D. Harrison (“Plaintiff”) is a prisoner proceeding pro se in a civil
20 rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
21
The Court screened Plaintiff’s Fifth Amended Complaint and found that it stated
22 cognizable Eighth Amendment claims against Defendants Moore, Jones, Burns, Kim,
23 and Dava.
(ECF No. 75).
24 responsive pleading.
These defendants were served, and they have filed a
(ECF Nos. 87, 93.)
The Court entered a discovery and
25 scheduling order at the time the responsive pleading was filed. (ECF No. 94.)
26
Plaintiff was allowed to file an amended pleading to include additional claims and
27 defendants. (ECF No. 136.) After several amended pleadings were rejected by the
28 Court, Plaintiff filed an Eighth Amended Complaint, and the Court found that it stated
1
1 cognizable Eighth Amendment medical care claims against Defendants Jones, Moore,
2 Burns, Urbano, Campos, Parsons, M. Gonzalez, C. Gonzalez, Cisneros, Zakari, Roth,
3 Kim, Dava, Galvan, Bastianon, Casio, Vicente, Johnson, Raygoza, O’Neal, Coronado,
4 Edmonds, and Tumayo. (ECF Nos. 154, 160.) On August 30, 2013, the Court ordered
5 the United States Marshall to serve the individuals who had not previously been served
6 in the action. (ECF No. 164.) The Marshall is currently in the process of completing
7 service on these individuals and is to complete service by January 2, 2014. (Id.)
8
On October 23, 2013, Plaintiff filed a motion requesting that the Court provide
9 him with service documents, serve the un-served defendants, and issue a new
10 scheduling order. (ECF No. 165.) Plaintiff’s motion is now before the Court. Local Rule
11 230(l)
12
Plaintiff’s request for service documents and that the Court initiate service on the
13 un-served individuals is denied as moot since the Court previously provided service
14 documents and has already ordered the United States Marshall to serve the additional
15 defendants. The Marshall is currently attempting to serve these defendants.
16
Plaintiff’s request for a new discovery order should be granted. In light of the fact
17 that Plaintiff has filed an amended pleading and is awaiting service on additional
18 defendants, there is good cause for additional time for discovery in this matter. The
19 Court will re-open discovery and extend the dispositive motion deadline.
20
Accordingly, the Court hereby ORDERS as follows:
21
1. Plaintiff’s requests that the Court provide him with additional service
22
documents and direct the United States Marshall to serve additional
23
defendants are DENIED as moot;
24
25
26
27
28
2. Plaintiff’s request to extend the discovery and dispositive motion deadlines is
GRANTED;
a. The deadline for completing all discovery, including filing motions to
compel, shall be July 18, 2014;
b. The deadline for filing pre-trial dispositive motions shall be September
2
18, 2014;
1
2
3. A request for an extension of a deadline set forth in this order must be filed on
or before the expiration of the deadline in question; and
3
4
4. Extensions of time shall only be granted upon a showing of good cause.
5
6
7
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:
November 26, 2013
/s/
8
Michael J. Seng
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3
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?