Thomas v. Stanislaus County et al

Filing 37

ORDER DISCHARGING 34 Order to Show Cause and Providing Plaintiff Thirty Days within which to Notify Court if further Discovery is Needed, Limited to Defendant Leguria signed by Magistrate Judge Sheila K. Oberto on 10/9/2012. (Sant Agata, S)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

8
DERRICK J. THOMAS,

CASE NO. 1:09-cv-02015-AWI-SKO PC

9
Plaintiff,

ORDER DISCHARGING ORDER TO SHOW
CAUSE AND PROVIDING PLAINTIFF
THIRTY DAYS WITHIN WHICH TO NOTIFY
COURT IF FURTHER DISCOVERY IS
NEEDED, LIMITED TO DEFENDANT
LEGURIA

10
v.
11
STANISLAUS COUNTY, et al.,
12
Defendants.
13

(Docs. 34 and 35)
/

14
15

Plaintiff Derrick J. Thomas, a prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed this

16

civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on November 17, 2009. This action is proceeding

17

against Defendants Stanislaus County Board of Supervisors, Stanislaus County Sheriff’s Department,

18

Sheriff Adam Christianson, Policy Manager Gina Leguria, Captain William Duncan, Lieutenants

19

Ronald Lloyd and Gregg Clifton, and Sergeant M. White arising out of the failure to provide Plaintiff

20

with adequate outdoor exercise. This matter is currently set for jury trial on July 9, 2013.

21

On October 4, 2012, the Court ordered Defendant Leguria and Defendants’ counsel to show

22

cause why sanctions should not be imposed based on Defendant’s failure to file a response to

23

Plaintiff’s complaint, as represented by Defendant and her counsel on May 3, 2012. (Docs. 29, 30.)

24

Defendant Leguria subsequently filed an answer on October 4, 2012, and in as much as this appears

25

to have been an isolated oversight, the Court elects to discharge the order to show cause at this time.

26

Chambers v. NASCO, Inc., 501 U.S. 32, 43-4, 111 S.Ct. 2123 (1991).

27

In her response filed on May 3, 2012, Defendant Leguria stated that the scheduling order in

28

effect did not need to be amended. If Plaintiff believes that further discovery is needed as to
1

1

Defendant Leguria, he may notify the Court within thirty days from the date of service of this order.

2

However, if Plaintiff takes the position that further discovery is needed, he is required to show due

3

diligence in his previous pursuit of discovery and he is required to show what discovery is sought

4

that is unique to Defendant Leguria such that it could not be obtained until she made a formal

5

appearance in the action. Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4); Zivkovic v. Southern California Edison Co., 302

6

F.3d 1080, 1087 (9th Cir. 2002). Plaintiff’s claim against Defendants arises from the same set of

7

facts and the issuance of this order is not an invitation to initiate discovery which could have been

8

but was not previously sought.

9

Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

10

1.

The order to show cause filed on October 4, 2012, is DISCHARGED;

11

2.

Plaintiff has thirty (30) days from the date of service of this order within which to

12

notify the Court if further discovery is needed as to Defendant Leguria; and

13

3.

14

If Plaintiff takes the position that further discovery is needed, he is required to
support his position with a showing of good cause.

15
16
17
18

IT IS SO ORDERED.

19

Dated:
ie14hj

October 9, 2012

/s/ Sheila K. Oberto
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2