McGlothin v. Harrington et al

Filing 53

ORDER DENYING Plaintiff's 46 Motion for Default Judgment against Defendant Torres; ORDER APPLYING May 4, 2012 43 Discovery and Scheduling Order to Defendant Torres signed by Magistrate Judge Gerald B. Cohn on 7/12/2012. (Sant Agata, S)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9
MICHAEL JOHN MCGLOTHIN,

CASE NO. 1:10-cv-00247-AWI-GBC (PC)

10
11

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION
FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT AGAINST
DEFENDANT TORRES

Plaintiff,

12

v.
Docs. 46, 47

13

K. HARRINGTON, et al.,
ORDER APPLYING MAY 4, 2012
DISCOVERY AND SCHEDULING ORDER
TO DEFENDANT TORRES

14
Defendants.
15
/

Docs. 41, 43, 48

16
17

On February 16, 2010, Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed this civil rights action

18

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On January 10, 2012, the Court directed the United States Marshal

19

(“USM”) to serve Defendants Castro, Jose, Steen, and J. Torres. Doc. 31. On March 13, 2012,

20

Defendants filed a motion for extension of time to file an answer to the complaint. Doc. 35. Counsel for

21

Defendants submitted the motion on behalf of Defendants Castro, Jose, Steen, and J. Torres. Id. On

22

March 14, 2012, the Court granted Defendants’ motion for extension of time to file an answer to the

23

complaint. Doc. 39. On May 3, 2012, Defendants Castro, Jose, and Steen filed an answer to the

24

complaint. Doc. 41. Defendant Torres was omitted from the answer. Id. On May 4, 2012, the Court

25

issued a discovery and scheduling order. Doc. 43. On May 8, 2012 and June 4, 2012, Plaintiff filed a

26

motion for default judgment against Defendant Torres. Docs. 46, 47. On June 11, 2012, Defendant

27

Torres filed an answer to the complaint. Doc. 48.

28

//
Page 1 of 2

1
2

In the interest of judicial economy, the Court will apply the May 4, 2012 discovery and
scheduling order to Defendant Torres.

3

Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

4

1.

The May 4, 2012 discovery and scheduling order applies to Defendant Torres; and

5

2.

Plaintiff’s motion for default judgment against Defendant Torres is DENIED.

6

IT IS SO ORDERED.

7
8

Dated:
7j8cce

July 12, 2012
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Page 2 of 2