Anaya v. Herrington et al

Filing 67

ORDER GRANTING Defendants' Motion and Vacating Discovery and Scheduling Order 66 , signed by Magistrate Judge Dennis L. Beck on 2/27/12: The Court's Discovery and Scheduling Order, issued April 15, 2011, is vacated. A new discovery and scheduling order will be issued if necessary after the screening of Plaintiff's fourth amended complaint. (Hellings, J)

1
2
3
4
5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

6
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
7
8

RICHARD ERNEST ANAYA,

9

Plaintiff,

10
11

CASE NO. 1:09-CV-01653-AWI-DLB PC
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’
MOTION AND VACATING DISCOVERY
AND SCHEDULING ORDER (DOC. 66)

v.
HERRINGTON, et al.,

12

Defendants.

13

/

14
15

Plaintiff Richard Ernest Anaya (“Plaintiff”) is a prisoner in the custody of the California

16

Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (“CDCR”). Plaintiff is proceeding pro se and in

17

forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Pending before the Court

18

is Defendants’ motion to stay discovery, filed November 14, 2011. Doc. 66. The matter is

19

submitted pursuant to Local Rule 230(l).

20

On April 15, 2011, the Court issued a Discovery and Scheduling Order. Doc. 40. This

21

action was proceeding on Plaintiff’s second amended complaint. Plaintiff subsequently received

22

leave to amend his complaint. On August 26, 2011, Plaintiff filed a third amended complaint.

23

Doc. 54.

24

dismissal for failure to state a claim, with leave to amend. As of the date of this order, the

25

Findings and Recommendations have not been resolved. Plaintiff filed his fourth amended

26

complaint on November 3, 2011.

27
28

On October 19, 2011, the Court screened Plaintiff’s complaint and recommended

Defendants contend that until the Court has screened Plaintiff’s fourth amended
complaint, they will not be able to respond properly to Plaintiff’s discovery requests.
1

1

Modification of the Court’s schedule requires a showing of good cause. Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4).

2

The Court finds good cause to grant such a modification.

3

Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that

4

1.

Defendants’ motion, filed November 14, 2011, is GRANTED;

5

2.

The Court’s Discovery and Scheduling Order, issued April 15, 2011, is vacated.

6

A new discovery and scheduling order will be issued if necessary after the

7

screening of Plaintiff’s fourth amended complaint.

8
9

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:
3b142a

February 27, 2012

/s/ Dennis L. Beck
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2