Holt v. Nicholas et al

Filing 59

ORDER GRANTING Second 58 Motion to Extend Time to Respond to Plaintiff's Discovery Requests; ORDER GRANTING Motion to Amend Discovery and Scheduling Order signed by Magistrate Judge Gerald B. Cohn on 12/6/2011. Discovery Cut-Off Date: 3/20/2012; Dispositive Motion Deadline: 4/17/2012. (Sant Agata, S)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
8
9

VIRGIL E. HOLT,

10

Plaintiff,

11
12

CASE NO. 1:09-cv-00800-AWI-GBC (PC)
ORDER GRANTING SECOND MOTION TO
EXTEND TIME TO RESPOND TO
PLAINTIFF’S DISCOVERY REQUESTS

v.
R. NICHOLAS, et al.,

13

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO AMEND
DISCOVERY AND SCHEDULING ORDER
Defendants.
Discovery Cut-Off Date - 03/20/2012
Dispositive Motion Deadline - 04/17/2012

14
15

/ (Doc. 58)

16
I.

Factual and Procedural Background

17
Plaintiff Virgil E. Holt, a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed this
18
civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on May 4, 2009. Doc. 1. This action is proceeding
19
on Plaintiff’s second amended complaint filed on April 8, 2010, against: 1) Defendants R. Nicholas,
20
A. Holguin, J. Ortega, L. Machado, J. Juden, G. Adame, F. Rivera, R. Valverde, D. Coontz, M.
21
Bubbel, K. Prior, J. Tyree, Large, Soto, Yubeta, Worrell, Vo, Knight, T. Crouch, Pinkerton, and
22
Valasco for violation of the Eighth Amendment; 2) Defendant Holguin for retaliation in violation
23
of the First Amendment and 3) Defendants Carrasco and D. Zanchi for supervisory liability. Doc.
24

21; Doc. 23, Doc. 28.1

25
26
27
28

1
Defendants Hopkins, Eubanks, Nipper Stevenson and Lundy were dismissed pursuant to the order filed
September 3, 2010, adopting the Court’s findings and recommendations. Doc. 28. Defendant “Crouch” was
dismissed regarding counts 12, 14, 15 for due process and retaliation, however, the Court found a cognizable Eighth
Amendment Claim Defendant “T. Crouch.” Doc. 23 at 3, 8; Doc. 28.

1

1

On January 26, 2011, the Court issued a discovery and scheduling order which set the

2

discovery deadline at September 26, 2011 and dispositive motion deadline at December 6, 2011.

3

Doc. 37. On December, 2011, Defendants filed a motion for a second extension of time to respond

4

to Plaintiff’s discovery requests and motioned to modify the discovery and scheduling order. Doc.

5

58. Defendants request a sixty day extension to prepare and serve sixty-nine responses to Plaintiff’s

6

discovery requests and to allow an additional sixty days to the dispositive motion deadline. The

7

Court grants Defendants’ motions for extension and amendment of the scheduling order. Doc. 58.

8

As Plaintiff will need time to review any discovery provided by Defendants, the Court will extend

9

the deadlines as follows:

10

1.

Defendants motion for extension to respond to Plaintiff’s discovery requests is

11

GRANTED and Defendants have SIXTY (60) days from service of this order to

12

respond to Plaintiff’s discovery requests.

13

2.

14

The parties are advised that the deadline for the completion of all discovery,
including filing motions to compel, shall be 03/20/2012;

15

3.

The deadline for filing pre-trial dispositive motions shall be 04/17/2012;2

16

3.

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

17

before the expiration of the deadline in question; and

18

4.

Extensions of time will only be granted on a showing of good cause.

19
20

IT IS SO ORDERED.

21
22

Dated:
0jh02o

December 6, 2011
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

23
24
25
26
27
28

2

The pre-trial dispositive motion deadline does not apply to the filing of unenumerated Rule 12(b) motions
to dismiss for failure to exhaust. Unenumerated Rule 12(b) motions for failure to exhaust must be filed on or before
the deadline separately set forth in the previous scheduling order.

2