Lamon v. Adams et al

Filing 109

ORDER Following Telephonic Status Conference (Docs. 38 , 54 , 57 , 64 , 78 , 80 , 85 , 86 , 89 , 91 , 93 , 103 , 104 ), signed by Magistrate Judge Sandra M. Snyder on 5/2/11: All outstanding motions, as well as objections that might be construed as requests for reconsideration, are DENIED as moot per this order. (Hellings, J)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
8
9

BARRY LOUIS LAMON,

10
11
12

CASE NO. 1:09-cv-00205-LJO-SMS (PC)

Plaintiff,

ORDER FOLLOWING
TELEPHONIC STATUS
CONFERENCE

v.
DERRAL ADAMS, et al.,

13

[Docs. 38, 54, 57, 64, 78, 80, 85, 86, 89, 91, 93,
103, 104]

Defendants.
/

14
15
16

On April 27, 2011, at 10:30 a.m. a telephonic status conference was held in this case with
Plaintiff appearing pro se and Lakeysia Beene, Esq. appearing for all served Defendants.

17

As discussed therein, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

18

(1)

the Complaint will be re-screened in light of the changed pleading standards as

19

delineated in Ashcroft v. Iqbal, ___ U.S. ___, 129 S.Ct. 1937 (2009). See Moss v.

20

U.S. Secret Service, 572 F.3d 962 (9th Cir. 2009) ref. Iqbal; Bell Atlantic Corp. v.

21

Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007);

22

(2)

within thirty (30) days of the date of service of the order adopting the screening

23

findings and recommendations, both parties may file discovery motions

24

delineating remaining discovery sought (i.e. via compelling further responses to

25

previously propounded discovery as well as additional discovery necessary for

26

adequate trial preparation and/or dispositive motions) oppositions and replies may

27

be filed in compliance with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Local

28
1

Rules;1

1
2

(3)

3

all outstanding motions, as well as objections that might be construed as requests
for reconsideration, are DENIED as moot per this order.

4
5
6

IT IS SO ORDERED.

7

Dated:
icido3

May 2, 2011

/s/ Sandra M. Snyder
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

1

Issues regarding previously served requests for admissions will be addressed by separate order and should
not be addressed in any such discovery motions. Subsequent to ruling on any such discovery motions, if deemed
appropriate, an amended scheduling order will issue setting forth a new, limited discovery deadline. Further, after
resolution of any such outstanding discovery issues, an order providing an amended pretrial dispositive motion
deadline will issue.

2