Allen v. Meyer et al

Filing 80

AMENDED ORDER GRANTING 69 Defendants' Motion to Modify 59 Discovery and Scheduling Order signed by Magistrate Judge Dennis L. Beck on 2/11/2015. All pending dates in the Discovery and Scheduling Order are VACATED and all discovery is STAYED. (Jessen, A)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

8
9

KELVIN ALLEN,

10
11
12

Case No. 1:09-cv-00729 DLB PC

Plaintiff,
AMENDED ORDER GRANTING
DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO MODIFY
DISCOVERY AND SCHEDULING ORDER

v.
MEYER, et al.,

(Document 69)
13

Defendants.

14
15

Plaintiff Kelvin Allen (“Plaintiff”) is a California state prisoner proceeding in forma pauperis

16

in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On June 20, 2014, the Ninth Circuit Court of

17

Appeals remanded the action to this Court with instructions to vacate the judgment.

18
19
20
21
22
23

Pursuant to the July 23, 2014, Notice of Appearance, Plaintiff is represented by counsel for
the limited purpose of resolving the issue of exhaustion of administrative remedies.
The Court issued a Discovery and Scheduling Order on August 27, 2014. The discovery
deadline is currently January 26, 2015, and the dispositive motion deadline is March 25, 2015.
Defendants’ November 25, 2014, motion for judgment on the pleadings based on exhaustion
is pending.

24

On December 19, 2014, Defendants filed a motion to modify the Discovery and Scheduling

25

Order. Plaintiff did not file an opposition and the motion is suitable for decision pursuant to Local

26

Rule 230(l).

27
28
1

1

DISCUSSION
A scheduling order “may be modified only for good cause,” and by leave of court. Fed. R. Civ. P.

2
3

16(b)(4). The Court has broad discretion to control the course of litigation under Fed. R. Civ. P. 16.

4

Hunt v. Cnty. of Orange, 672 F.3d 606, 616 (9th Cir. 2012).

5

Defendants request that the Court vacate the discovery and dispositive motion deadlines pending

6

resolution of the motion for judgment on the pleadings, which is potentially dispositive of all claims

7

against two of the six Defendants. Defendants request a stay because of the ethical issues presented in

8

propounding merits-based discovery to Plaintiff, where his representation is limited to the exhaustion

9

issue.
Given the unusual circumstances, the Court GRANTS Defendants’ motion. The pending dates in

10
11

the Discovery and Scheduling Order are VACATED and all discovery is STAYED.1 The Court will

12

issue an amended scheduling order after the ruling on the pending motion. At this time, Defendants are

13

relieved of their obligation to respond to Plaintiff’s written discovery requests, propounded by Plaintiff

14

himself.

15

Now that discovery is stayed and the only issue pending before the Court is exhaustion,

16

Plaintiff’s counsel will now be the sole representative for Plaintiff, both before the Court and in

17

discussions with Defendants.

18
19

IT IS SO ORDERED.

20

Dated:

/s/ Dennis

February 11, 2015

L. Beck

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
1

The Court denied Plaintiff’s request for Rule 56(d) discovery on October 29, 2014.

2