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)

Download PDF
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

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?