Jackson v. Yates et al

Filing 85

ORDER Granting Plaintiff's Motions to Withdraw His February 11, 2013 Motions to Compel re 68 , 69 , 70 and Directing Clerk of Court to Terminate Motions 52 , 55 , 56 ; ORDER Denying as Moot Plaintiff's Second Motion for Extension of Time Thirty Days 67 ; ORDER Granting Plaintiff's Motion for Extension of Time Sixty Days 57 ; ORDER Directing Defendants Nichols, Mendez and Gonzales to Repond to Plaintiff's Motion for Sanctions and Motions for Extensions of Time 75 , 76 , 77 , 78 , 79 , 80 , signed by Magistrate Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe on 8/12/13. (Gonzalez, R)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

CURTIS RENEE JACKSON,

12
13
14

Plaintiff,
v.
Y. A. YATES, et al.,

15

Defendants.

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23

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

Case No.: 1:11-cv-00080-LJO-BAM PC
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTIONS TO
WITHDRAW HIS FEBRUARY 11, 2013,
MOTIONS TO COMPEL (ECF Nos. 68, 69, 70)
AND DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT TO
TERMINATE MOTIONS (ECF Nos. 51, 55, 56)
ORDER DENYING AS MOOT PLAINTIFF’S
SECOND MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME
THIRTY (30) DAYS (ECF No. 67)
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR
EXTENSION OF TIME SIXTY (60) DAYS (ECF
No. 57)
ORDER DIRECTING DEFENDANTS NICHOLS,
MENDEZ AND GONZALES TO RESPOND TO
PLAINTIFF’S MOTIONS FOR SANCTIONS AND
MOTIONS FOR EXTENSIONS OF TIME (ECF
Nos. 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80)

24

I.

25

Plaintiff Curtis Renee Jackson (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma

Background

26

pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action is proceeding on

27

Plaintiff’s second amended complaint, filed on May 7, 2012, against Defendant Mendez for excessive

28
1

1

force in violation of the Eighth Amendment; and against Defendants Daley, Samonte, Nichols, Valdez

2

and Gonzales for failure to intervene in violation of the Eighth Amendment.

3

On February 11, 2013, Plaintiff filed the following discovery motions: (1) motion for order

4

compelling Defendant C. Nichols to produce documents for inspection (ECF No. 51); (2) motion

5

requesting an order for non-party Board of Vocational Nursing & Psychiatric Technicians to produce

6

document concerning Defendant C. Nichols (ECF No. 52); (3) motion requesting an order for non-

7

party Office of the Inspector General to produce documents regarding Defendant Mendez (ECF No.

8

53); (4) motion requesting an order for non-party Board of Vocational Nursing & Psychiatric

9

Technicians to produce documents regarding Defendant C. Nichols (ECF No. 54); (5) motion for an

10

order compelling Defendant Gonzales to produce documents (ECF No. 55); (6) motion for an order

11

compelling Defendant Mendez to produce documents (ECF No. 56); and (7) motion for a sixty-day

12

(60) extension of time to respond to Defendants’ request for production of documents and

13

interrogatories (ECF No. 57).

14
15
16
17

On March 4, 2013, Defendants filed oppositions to Plaintiff’s motions for orders compelling
Defendants Nichols, Gonzales and Mendez to produce documents. (ECF Nos. 59, 60, 61.)
On March 22, 2013, Plaintiff filed a declaration in support of his motion to compel Defendant
Mendez to produce documents. (ECF No. 62.)

18

On April 1, 2013, Plaintiff filed a motion for a 30-day extension of time to respond to

19

Defendants’ opposition to Plaintiff’s motion for an order compelling Defendant Gonzales to produce

20

documents. (ECF No. 63.) The Court granted the requested extension of time on April 4, 2013. (ECF

21

No. 66.)

22

On April 29, 2013, Plaintiff requested a second 30-day extension of time to respond to

23

Defendants’ opposition to Plaintiff’s motion for an order compelling Defendant Nichols to produce

24

documents. (ECF No. 67.) The request for an extension of time is pending.

25

On May 13, 2013, Plaintiff filed motions to withdraw his motions to compel the production of

26

documents from Defendant Nichols, Gonzales and Mendez. (ECF Nos. 68, 69, 70.) On May 13,

27

2013, Plaintiff also filed supplements to his motions to compel production of documents from

28

Defendants Gonzales, Nichols and Mendez. (ECF Nos. 71, 72, 73.)
2

1
2
3
4
5

On June 21, 2013, Plaintiff filed motions for sanctions against Defendants Mendez, Gonzales
and Nichols. (ECF Nos. 75, 76, 77.)
On June 21, 2013, Plaintiff also filed motions for a ninety (90) day extension of time for
discovery from Defendants Gonzales, Mendez and Nichols. (ECF Nos. 78, 79, 80.)
On July 22, 2013, Plaintiff filed a motion for an order compelling discovery from Defendant

6

Mendez. (ECF No. 81). On August 5, 2013, Defendant Mendez filed an opposition to Plaintiff’s

7

motion to compel. (ECF No. 82.)

8
9
10

II.

Discussion
A. Plaintiff’s Motions to Withdraw

As noted above, on February 11, 2013, Plaintiff filed a motion for order compelling Defendant

11

C. Nichols to produce documents for inspection, a motion for an order compelling Defendant

12

Gonzales to produce documents and a motion for an order compelling Defendant Mendez to produce

13

documents. (ECF Nos. 51, 55, and 56.) Defendants opposed the motions. (ECF Nos. 59, 60, 61.)

14

On May 13, 2013, Plaintiff filed a motion to withdraw, as premature, the motions to compel

15

production of documents from Defendants Nichols, Gonzales, and Mendez that he filed on February

16

11, 2013. (ECF Nos. 68, 69, 70.)

17

Plaintiff’s motions to withdraw shall be granted, and the Clerk of the Court will be directed to

18

terminate Plaintiff’s motions to compel the production of documents from Defendants Nichols,

19

Gonzales and Mendez (ECF Nos. 51, 55, and 56), which were filed on February 11, 2013.

20
21

B. Plaintiff’s Second Motion for Extension of Time Thirty (30) Days
On April 19, 2013, Plaintiff filed a request for an extension of time to respond to Defendants’

22

opposition to Plaintiff’s motion to compel the production of documents from Defendant Nichols.

23

(ECF No. 67.) However, Plaintiff requested to withdraw his motion to compel, and the Court intends

24

to grant his request. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion for an extension of time to respond to

25

Defendants’ opposition is now moot and his requested extension shall be denied.

26
27
28

C. Plaintiff’s Motion for Extension of Time Sixty (60) Days
On February 11, 2013, Plaintiff requested a sixty day extension of time to respond to
Defendants’ request for production of documents and interrogatories. (ECF No. 57.) Plaintiff
3

1

requested that he be allowed to submit his responses on or before May 6, 2013, and explained that he

2

is a mental health patient and he requires additional time to obtain information (affidavits) from other

3

inmates and to access the law library. Defendants did not file an opposition to Plaintiff’s request for

4

an extension of time.

5

Good cause appearing, Plaintiff’s request for an extension of time to respond to Defendants’

6

request for production of documents and interrogatories shall be granted. If Plaintiff has not already

7

responded, his responses to Defendants’ request for production and interrogatories shall be served on

8

or before August 30, 2013.
D. Plaintiff’s Motions for Sanctions and Motions for Extension of Discovery

9

Deadlines

10
11

As noted above, Plaintiff filed motions for sanctions against Defendants Nichols, Gonzales and

12

Mendez on June 21, 2013. (ECF Nos. 75, 76, 77.) Plaintiff also filed motions that appear to request

13

an extension of the discovery deadlines in this action. (ECF Nos. 78, 79, and 80.)

14
15

Defendants shall be ordered to file oppositions or statements of non-opposition to the pending
motions within thirty days. No replies will be needed.

16

III.

Conclusion and Order

17

Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED as follows:

18

1. Plaintiff’s motions to withdraw, filed on May 13, 2013, are GRANTED;

19

2. The Clerk of the Court is directed to terminate Plaintiff’s motion to compel the production

20

of documents from Defendants Nichols, Gonzales and Mendez, filed on February 11, 2013,

21

and identified at ECF Nos. 51, 55, and 56;

22
23

3. Plaintiff’s second motion for an extension of time, filed on April 29, 2013, is DENIED as
moot;

24

4. Plaintiff’s motion for a sixty (60) day extension of time to respond to Defendants’ request

25

for production and interrogatories, filed on February 11, 2013, is GRANTED. If Plaintiff

26

has not already done so, his responses to Defendants’ request for production of documents

27

and interrogatories shall be served no later than August 30, 2013; and

28
4

1

5. Defendants Nichols, Gonzales and Mendez shall file oppositions or statements of non-

2

opposition to Plaintiff’s motions for sanctions and Plaintiff’s motions for an extension of

3

the discovery deadline within thirty (30) days of the date of this order.

4
5
6
7

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

/s/ Barbara

August 12, 2013

A. McAuliffe

_

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
5