Jacobs v. Quinones et al

Filing 36

ORDER DENYING 35 EX PARTE MOTION FOR MODIFICATION / STAY OF SCHEDULING ORDER AND NOTICE OF DEFENDANT NOT SERVED SUMMONS AND COMPLAINT signed by Magistrate Judge Jennifer L. Thurston on 8/19/2013. (Lundstrom, T)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

GEORGE E. JACOBS, IV,

12
13
14
15
16

Plaintiff,
v.
A.C. QUINONES, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No.: 1:10-cv-02349 – AWI – JLT (PC)
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S EX PARTE
MOTION FOR MODIFICATION/STAY OF
SCHEDULING ORDER AND NOTICE OF
DEFENDANT NOT SERVED SUMMONS AND
COMPLAINT
(Doc. 35)

17
18

Plaintiff George E. Jacobs, IV, (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma

19

pauperis in a prisoner civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff seeks an ex parte

20

modification order or stay of the scheduling order and informs the Court that the U.S. Marshals have

21

not yet served Defendant Williams. (Doc. 35 at 1). Plaintiff briefly reports that he cannot commence

22

discovery until “all defendants are accounted for and have made an appearance in this action.” Id.

23

Plaintiff provides no further explanation as to why he cannot pursue discovery in this matter.

24

However, four Defendants filed their answer in this matter on July 11, 2013. (Doc. 33). The

25

fact that Defendant Williams has not yet been served has no bearing on Plaintiff’s ability to pursue his

26

actions against these Defendants. Further, holding this matter in abeyance until Defendant Williams is

27

served would unnecessarily delay these proceedings and prejudice the remaining Defendants. Thus,

28

Plaintiff fails to demonstrate good cause and his request for modification of the scheduling order is
1

1

DENIED.

2

In regard to Plaintiff’s “notice of defendant not served summons and complaint,” Plaintiff is

3

advised that the U.S. Marshals will serve Defendant Williams in due course. In the event that the U.S.

4

Marshals are unable to serve Defendant Williams based upon the information previously provided by

5

Plaintiff, the Court will allow Plaintiff an additional opportunity to provide further information to

6

locate Defendant Williams for service. If Plaintiff has additional information at this time, he may

7

provide it now in order to speed the process along.

8

ORDER

9

Accordingly, the Court HEREBY ORDERS that Plaintiff’s ex parte motion for modification

10

or stay of scheduling order (Doc. 35) is DENIED.

11
12
13
14

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

August 19, 2013

/s/ Jennifer L. Thurston
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2