Lamon v. Adams et al

Filing 226

ORDER Granting Withdrawal of Defendants' 175 Motion for Summary Judgment and Amending the Scheduling Order signed by Magistrate Judge Sandra M. Snyder on 09/17/2013. Dispositive Motions filed by 11/12/2013. (Flores, E)

1
2
3
4
5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

6
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

7
8
9

BARRY LOUIS LAMON,

10

Plaintiff,

11

v.

12

ADAMS, et al.,

13
14
15
16

Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 1:09-cv-00205-LJO-SMS (PC)
ORDER GRANTING WITHDRAWAL
OF DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR
SUMMARY JUDGMENT and AMENDING
THE SCHEDULING ORDER
(ECF Nos. 175, 224)
Dispositive Motion Due - 11/12/2013
Opposition Due - 01/13/2014
Reply Due - 01/31/2014

Barry Louis Lamon (“Plaintiff”), a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed

17

this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and is proceeding on the Complaint, filed

18

February 2, 2009, on his claims against Defendants Baer, Valdez, Buenos, Lee, Ponce, and Purvis for

19

excessive use of force and deliberate indifference for Plaintiff’s safety in violation of the Eighth

20

Amendment and for retaliation in violation of the First Amendment.

21

Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment. (ECF No. 175.) Plaintiff filed an

22

opposition to which Defendants replied. (ECF Nos. 218, 220.) On cursory review, both the moving

23

and opposing papers for this motion were seriously deficient (both due their own insufficient efforts

24

and due to sequences of events beyond their control). Thus, opportunity was given for withdrawal and

25

new filing of both moving and opposing papers which was accepted. (ECF Nos. 223, 224.)

26
27

It is well within the discretion of this Court to manage its docket and calendar. Given that
ruling on the Defendants' currently filed motion for summary judgment will drain judicial resources to

28
1

1
2
3
4
5

only accomplish a narrowing of a few claims against a few of the Defendants which may serve no
purpose other than to create confusion for the ultimate trier of fact and given that the motion was filed
before all discovery disputes could be resolved, good cause exists to accept the withdrawal of
Defendants' motion for summary judgment and to set new deadlines for filing of and opposing
dispositive motions. Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b).

6

Accordingly, good cause existing, it is HEREBY ORDERED that;

7

(1)

8

Defendants' motion for summary judgment, filed on September 7, 2012 (ECF No. 175),
is removed from the Court's calendar and is deemed withdrawn;

9

(2)

10

the discovery and scheduling order is amended as follows:
(a)
(b)

11

the deadline for filing a pre-trial dispositive motion1 is November 12, 2013;
the deadline for filing an opposition2 to a dispositive motion is January 13,

12

2014;

13

(c)

14

the deadline for filing a reply to any opposition to a dispositive motion is
January 31, 2014; and

15

(3)

Any request for an extension of a deadline set in this order must be filed on or before

16
the expiration of the deadline in question; and
17
(4)

Further extensions of time will be granted on a showing of good cause.

18
19
20

IT IS SO ORDERED.

21

Dated:

22

September 17, 2013

/s/ Sandra M. Snyder
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

DEAC_Signature-END:

23

icido34h

24
25
26
27
28

1
2

Any dispositive motion filed under this order must be new and complete within itself.
Any opposition to a dispositive motion must likewise be entirely new and complete within itself (i.e. it must include all
documents (or legible copies thereof) relied on as evidence and may not generally reference prior filings in this action).
Plaintiff may not file an "amendment to" or "supplement to" any oppositions that he has filed in the past.

2