Ahdom v. Lopez et al

Filing 184

ORDER granting Plaintiff's 179 Motion requesting pardon for mistake and Request for opportunity to file response to Defendants' discovery motions signed by Magistrate Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe on 9/14/2016. (Filing Deadline: 10/18/2016). (Lundstrom, T)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9
10
11

BILAL AHDOM,
Plaintiff,

12
13
14

v.
S. LOPEZ, et al.,
Defendants.

15
16
17
18

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

1:09-cv-01874-AWI-BAM (PC)
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION REQUESTING PARDON FOR
MISTAKE AND REQUEST FOR
OPPORTUNITY TO FILE RESPONSE TO
DEFENDANTS’ DISCOVERY MOTIONS
(ECF No. 179)
THIRTY (30) DAY DEADLINE

Plaintiff Bilal Ahdom (“Plaintiff”), a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma

19

pauperis, filed this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action proceeds on

20

Plaintiff’s claims against Defendants Schaefer, Araich, Chen, Shittu, and Ashby for deliberate

21

indifference to serious medical needs in violation of the Eighth Amendment.

22

On February 18, 2016, Defendant Ashby filed a motion to compel certain discovery

23

responses. (ECF No. 170.) On February 29, 2016, Defendants Araich, Chen, and Shittu filed two

24

motions to compel certain discovery responses, (ECF Nos. 171, 173), and a motion to determine

25

the sufficiency of answers or objections, (ECF No. 172). Plaintiff failed to respond to any of

26

these motions.

27

On April 20, 2016, the Court ordered Plaintiff to file an opposition or statement of non-

28

opposition to Defendants’ motions, listed above. (ECF No. 175.) Plaintiff was permitted thirty

1

(30) days from the date of service of that order to comply. (Id. at 2.) Thus, Plaintiff’s response

2

was due on or before May 30, 2016. (ECF

3

On June 3, 2016, Plaintiff filed the current motion, entitled “Motion Requesting Pardon

4

for Mistake in Interpreting this Court’s 4/20/16 Order and Requesting Another Opportunity to

5

File the Correct Response to Defendants’ Motions.” (ECF No. 179.) In that motion, Plaintiff

6

explained that on or about May 19, 2016, he mistakenly mailed to the Court his responses to

7

Defendants’ discovery requests in lieu of an opposition or statement of non-opposition. The

8

discovery responses were returned to him on or around May 27, 2016, at which point he realized

9

he misinterpreted the Court’s order, and subsequently filed this motion. Plaintiff requests another

10

opportunity to respond to the pending discovery motions, based on his attempt to comply and

11

mistake and confusion.

12

The Court finds good cause to grant Plaintiff one final opportunity to respond to the

13

pending discovery motions. Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4). The Court is hopeful that Plaintiff has sent

14

Defendants some discovery responses that may have eliminated some or all of the parties’

15

discovery dispute, and resolution between the parties of such disputes without Court intervention

16

is preferred.

17

Accordingly, Plaintiff is HEREBY ORDERED to file an opposition or a statement of

18

non-opposition to Defendants’ discovery motions, listed above, (ECF No. 170, 171, 172, and

19

173), within thirty (30) days. Plaintiff is warned that the failure to comply with this order

20

may result in the imposition of sanctions, up to and including the dismissal of this action.

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

September 14, 2016

/s/ Barbara

A. McAuliffe

_

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE