Huckabee v. Medical Staff at CSATF et al
ORDER REGARDING DEFENDANTS' REQUEST FOR CLARIFICATION OF COURT'S ORDER VACATING JUNE 20, 2017 DISCOVERY AND SCHEDULING ORDER AND EXTENDING APPLICATION OF JUNE 16, 2017 DISCOVERY AND SCHEDULING ORDER TO DEFENDANT JEFFREYS 222 signed by Magistrate Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe on 7/7/2017. (Lundstrom, T)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
ANTHONY CRAIG HUCKABEE,
MEDICAL STAFF AT CSATF, et al.,
Case No. 1:09-cv-00749-DAD-BAM (PC)
ORDER REGARDING DEFENDANTS’
REQUEST FOR CLARIFICATION OF
COURT’S ORDER VACATING JUNE 20,
2017 DISCOVERY AND SCHEDULING
ORDER AND EXTENDING APPLICATION
OF JUNE 16, 2017 DISCOVERY AND
SCHEDULING ORDER TO DEFENDANT
(ECF No. 222)
Plaintiff Anthony Craig Huckabee (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in
forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action proceeds on
Plaintiff’s fifth amended complaint against Defendants Wu, McGuinness, Enenmoh, Jeffreys, and
Jimenez in their individual capacities for deliberate indifference to serious medical needs in
violation of the Eighth Amendment. (ECF No. 195, 199.)
On June 15, 2017, Defendant McGuinness filed an answer to the fifth amended complaint.
(ECF No. 212.) On June 16, 2017, the Court issued a discovery and scheduling order setting
forth discovery procedures and filing deadlines. (ECF No. 216.) On June 19, 2017, Defendants
Enenmoh, Jimenez, and Wu filed their answer to the fifth amended complaint, (ECF No. 217),
and Defendant Jeffreys filed a motion to dismiss, (ECF No. 218). The Court issued a second
discovery and scheduling order on June 20, 2017, which also set forth discovery procedures and
filing deadlines. (ECF No. 220.) On June 21, 2017, the Court issued an order vacating the June
20, 2017 discovery and scheduling order and extending application of the June 16, 2017
discovery and scheduling order to Defendants Enenmoh, Jimenez, Wu, and Jeffreys. (ECF No.
Currently before the Court is Defendants’ request for clarification regarding the Court’s
June 21, 2017 order with respect to Defendant Jeffreys. (ECF No. 222.) Defendant Jeffreys
states that because she has filed a motion to dismiss, she respectfully requests that discovery
remain closed as to her until the Court issues a ruling on her motion to dismiss.
Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(a), Defendant Jeffreys’ request for
clarification is GRANTED. The Court’s Discovery and Scheduling Order is intended to apply
solely to those defendants that have filed an answer in this action. In the event that Defendant
Jeffreys’ pending motion to dismiss is denied, the Court will issue a separate order concerning the
discovery deadlines applicable to Defendant Jeffreys.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
July 7, 2017
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
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?