Fields v. Masiel et al

Filing 72

ORDER Directing Defendants to File a Response to (1) Plaintiff's Motion for a 30-Day Extension of Time to Serve Responses to Defendants' Request for Further Responses to Discovery Request; and (2) Plaintiff's Motion to Re-Serve Requests for Futher Responses to Discovery and motion for Sanctions re 69 , 71 , signed by Magistrate Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe on 05/20/14. Twenty-One Day Deadline. (Gonzalez, R)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

KEVIN E. FIELDS,

12
13
14

Plaintiff,
v.
JOSE MASIEL, et al.,

15

Defendants.

16
17
18

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

Case No.: 1:10-cv-01699-AWI-BAM (PC)
ORDER DIRECTING DEFENDANTS TO FILE A
RESPONSE TO (1) PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR
A 30-DAY EXTENSION OF TIME TO SERVE
RESPONSES TO DEFENDANTS’ REQUEST FOR
FURTHER RESPONSES TO DISCOVERY
REQUEST; AND (2) PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO
RE-SERVE REQUESTS FOR FURTHER
RESPONSES TO DISCOVERY AND MOTION
FOR SANCTIONS (ECF Nos. 69, 71)
TWENTY-ONE DAY DEADLINE

19

Plaintiff Kevin E. Fields (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma

20

pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On March 17, 2014, Defendants filed

21

a motion for sanctions. (ECF No. 65.) Plaintiff did not respond. Accordingly, on April 21, 2014, the

22

Court directed Plaintiff to respond to Defendants’ motion for sanctions within twenty-one (21) days.

23

(ECF No. 67.)

24

In lieu of a response, on April 28, 2014, Plaintiff filed a motion for a thirty-day extension of

25

time to serve responses to Defendants’ request for further responses to discovery requests. (ECF No.

26

69.) Defendants did not respond. Thereafter, on May 12, 2014, Plaintiff filed a motion requesting an

27

order directing Defendants to re-serve their request for further responses to discovery and to reserve

28
1

1

their motion for sanctions. Plaintiff also requested additional time to serve his discovery responses.

2

(ECF No. 71.) Defendants have not yet responded to this motion.

3

The Court finds it appropriate to permit Defendants an opportunity to respond to Plaintiff’s

4

motions. Defendants’ response may render the pending motion for sanctions moot. Accordingly,

5

Defendants are directed to file a response or a statement of non-opposition to Plaintiff’s pending

6

motions within twenty-one (21) days of the date of this order.

7

IT IS SO ORDERED.

8
9

Dated:

/s/ Barbara

May 20, 2014

A. McAuliffe

_

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

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