Scott v. Palmer et al

Filing 178

ORDER ADDRESSING 135 MOTION FOR CLARIFICATION signed by Magistrate Judge Sheila K. Oberto on 11/25/2014. (Lundstrom, T)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9
10

FLOYD SCOTT,
Plaintiff,

11
12

Case No. 1:09-cv-01329-LJO-SKO (PC)
ORDER ADDRESSING MOTION FOR
CLARIFICATION

v.
(Doc. 135)

13

J. PALMER, et al.,

14

Defendants.
_____________________________________/

15
16

Plaintiff Floyd Scott, a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed this

17 civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on July 29, 2009. This action for damages is
18 proceeding against Defendants Palmer, Rivera, and Lopez on Plaintiff=s claim that while he was at
19 Kern Valley State Prison in Delano, California, Defendant Palmer used excessive physical force
20 against him and Defendants Rivera and Lopez failed to intervene, in violation of his rights under
21 the Eighth Amendment of the United States Constitution.
22

On March 13, 2013, Plaintiff filed a motion seeking clarification regarding the extension of

23 time granted to Defendants to serve their discovery responses. (Doc. 135.) Plaintiff’s point in the
24 main is that the extension was granted before Plaintiff had the opportunity to file an opposition.
25 Local Rule 230(l). The Court is vested with broad discretion to manage discovery, Dichter-Mad
26 Family Partners, LLP v. U.S., 709 F.3d 749, 751 (9th Cir. 2013) (per curiam), cert. denied, 134
27 S.Ct. 117; Hunt v. Cnty. of Orange, 672 F.3d 606, 616 (9th Cir. 2012); Surfvivor Media, Inc. v.
28 Survivor Prods., 406 F.3d 625, 635 (9th Cir. 2005); Hallett v. Morgan, 296 F.3d 732, 751 (9th Cir.

1 2002), and in the exercise of that discretion, there may be occasions when it elects to grant a
2 timely request for an extension of time ex parte, where the requested extension is routine in the
3 ordinary course of litigation and it would result in no prejudice to the non-moving party. See Fed.
4 R. Civ. P. 6(b)(1); Local Rule 144. Plaintiff’s disagreement with the reasons Defendants proffered
5 in seeking an extension of time are noted, but it does not alter, nor would it have altered, the
6 Court’s ruling on what was an ordinary request for an extension of time which would result in no
7 prejudice to Plaintiff.
8

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion for clarification (doc. 135) is HEREBY DEEMED

9 ADDRESSED.
10
11
12

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

November 25, 2014

/s/ Sheila K. Oberto
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2