Jackson v. Yates et al

Filing 126

ORDER Declining to Re-Open Discovery as to Claim Against Defendant Samonte, 122 , 124 , signed by Magistrate Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe on 07/01/14. (Gonzalez, R)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

8
9
10
11

CURTIS RENEE JACKSON,
Plaintiff,

12
13
14
15

vs.
Y. A. YATES, et al.,
Defendants.

16

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

1:11-cv-00080-LJO-BAM PC
ORDER DECLINING TO RE-OPEN
DISCOVERY AS TO CLAIM AGAINST
DEFENDANT SAMONTE
(ECF No. 122, 124)

17
18

Plaintiff Curtis Renee Jackson (“Plaintiff”) is a prisoner in the custody of the California

19

Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (“CDCR”). Plaintiff is proceeding pro se in this

20

civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

21

On May 30, 2012, the Court found a cognizable Eighth Amendment claim against

22

Defendant Mendez for excessive force and against Defendants Daley, Samonte, Nichols, Valdez,

23

and Gonzales for failure to intervene. Defendants Gonzales, Mendez and Nichols answered

24

Plaintiff’s second amended complaint on November 16, 2012, and the Court issued a Discovery

25

and Scheduling Order on November 27, 2012.

26

On January 15, 2014, a summons was returned unexecuted for Defendant Samonte.

27

Following receipt of information from Plaintiff, the Court issued a second order directing the

28

United States Marshal to serve Defendant Samonte on March 6, 2014.
1

1

On March 10, 2014, Defendants Daley and Valdez filed an answer to the second

2

amended complaint. Following a request for status and a motion by Plaintiff, the Court extended

3

the discovery deadline to May 12, 2014, solely to permit Plaintiff to file a motion for a third-

4

party subpoena. The Court also extended the dispositive motion deadline to July 24, 2014.

5

After expiration of the discovery deadline, Defendant Samonte filed an answer to the

6

second amended complaint on May 29, 2014. As Defendant Samonte is part of the same

7

incident at issue in this action, on June 2, 2014, the Court directed the parties to file a status

8

report within twenty-one (21) days addressing what, if any, additional discovery was necessary

9

related to the claim against Defendant Samonte.
On June 12, 2014, Defendants filed a status report indicating that no additional discovery

10
11

was necessary as to the claim against Defendant Samonte or for Defendant Samonte to prepare

12

and file a motion for summary judgment by the current deadline of July 24, 2014. (ECF No.

13

124.)

14

Plaintiff did not file a status report in response to the Court’s order.

15

Based on the information submitted by Defendants, it does not appear that any further

16

discovery is necessary regarding the claim against Defendant Samonte. The Court therefore

17

DECLINES to re-open discovery.

18
19
20
21

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

/s/ Barbara

July 1, 2014

A. McAuliffe

_

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2