Carlson v. Hansen, et al.

Filing 59

ORDER GRANTING 58 Motion to Modify Scheduling Order and Vacating 35 Scheduling Order Pending Further Order, signed by Magistrate Judge Sheila K. Oberto on 12/20/2013. (Marrujo, C)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9
THOMAS JOHN CARLSON,

10

Plaintiff,

11
v.

12

Case No. 1:10-cv-00759-LJO-SKO PC
ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO MODIFY
SCHEDULING ORDER AND VACATING
SCHEDULING ORDER PENDING
FURTHER ORDER

R. HANSEN, et al.,

13

(Docs. 35 and 58)
Defendants.

14

_____________________________________/

15
16

Plaintiff Thomas John Carlson, a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis,

17

18 filed this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on April 30, 2010. This action is now
19 proceeding on Plaintiff’s third amended complaint, filed on November 6, 2013, against
20 Defendants Worth, Newton, Rodriquez, Vega, Monroy, Angulo, Madrid, O=Brien, Abraham,
21 Alvarado, Chan, Garza, Ikeni, McCave, and Villa. Defendants Worth, Newton, Rodriquez, Vega,
22 Monroy, Angulo, Madrid, and O=Brien’s answer is due on or before January 20, 2014, and the
23 United States Marshal is in the process of obtaining waivers of service from newly-added
1
24 Defendants Abraham, Alvarado, Chan, Ikeni, and McCave.

On December 16, 2013, Defendants Worth, Newton, Rodriquez, Vega, Monroy, Angulo,

25

26 Madrid, O=Brien, Garza, and Villa filed a motion seeking to modify the discovery and pretrial
27
28

1

Newly-added Defendants Garza and Villa have already returned waivers of service. (Doc. 57.) Including three days
for mailing under Rule 6(d), their response to Plaintiff’s third amended complaint is due or on before January 24,
2014. Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(d)(3), 6(d), 12.

1 dispositive motion deadlines set forth in the scheduling order filed on February 12, 2013.
2

Given the recent addition of seven new defendants and in the interest of conserving the

3 Court’s and the State’s resources by ensuring this action proceeds forward under one scheduling
4 order, the Court finds good cause exists to vacate the current scheduling order. Fed. R. Civ. P.
5 16(b)(4). A new scheduling order will be issued in due course.
6

Accordingly, Defendants’ motion is HEREBY GRANTED and the scheduling order filed

7 on February 12, 2013, is VACATED pending further order.
8
9
10

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

December 20, 2013

/s/ Sheila K. Oberto
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

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