Jackson v. Yates et al

Filing 99

ORDER GRANTING Plaintiff's 94 Motion for 30-Day Extension of Time to Respond to Claims Nunc Pro Tunc; ORDER GRANTING Plaintiff's 97 Motion for Extension of Discovery Deadline; ORDER DENYING Defendants' 98 Motion to Extend the Dispositive Motion Deadline as Moot, signed by Magistrate Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe on 1/13/14. (Marrujo, C)

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
24
25
26
27
28

I.

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

Case No.: 1:11-cv-00080-LJO-BAM PC
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR
30-DAY EXTENSION OF TIME TO RESPOND
TO CLAIMS NUNC PRO TUNC (ECF No. 94.)
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR
EXTENSION OF DISCOVERY DEADLINE (ECF
No. 97)
ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO
EXTEND THE DISPOSITIVE MOTION
DEADLINE AS MOOT (ECF No. 98)

Background

Plaintiff Curtis Renee Jackson (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma
pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action is proceeding on
Plaintiff’s second amended complaint, filed on May 7, 2012, against Defendant Mendez for excessive
force in violation of the Eighth Amendment; and against Defendants Daley, Samonte, Nichols, Valdez
and Gonzales for failure to intervene in violation of the Eighth Amendment.
On July 22, 2013, Plaintiff filed a motion for an order compelling discovery from Defendant
Mendez. (ECF No. 81.) On August 5, 2013, Defendant Mendez filed an opposition, arguing that
Plaintiff’s motion should be denied because he failed to attach Defendant’s discovery responses or
1

1

address Defendant’s objections. (ECF No. 82.) On August 23, 2013, Plaintiff filed a motion

2

requesting a sixty (60) day extension of time to respond to Defendant Mendez’s opposition. (ECF No.

3

87.) On August 29, 2013, the Court granted Plaintiff thirty days to file a reply to Defendant Mendez’s

4

opposition. (ECF No. 88.)

5

On September 6, 2013, the Court granted Plaintiff’s unopposed motions for an extension of the

6

discovery deadline for the limited purpose of resolving Plaintiff’s pending discovery motions and

7

allowing Plaintiff to file any motions to compel related to discovery requested from Defendants

8

Nichols, Gonzales and Mendez. The Court set the deadline to complete such discovery as October 25,

9

2013, and the deadline to file dispositive motions as January 6, 2014. (ECF No. 92.)

10

Following issuance of that order, on September 25, 203, Plaintiff requested an extension of

11

time to respond to Defendant Mendez’s opposition to the pending motion to compel. (ECF No. 94.)

12

Thereafter, on October 29, 2013, Plaintiff filed his reply. (ECF No. 95.)

13

On November 22, 2013, Plaintiff filed a motion requesting a sixty-day extension of the

14

discovery deadlines in this matter related to discovery requested from Defendant Gonzales. (ECF No.

15

97.) Defendants did not file an opposition or statement of non-opposition.

16
17

On January 6, 2014, Defendants filed a motion to modify the dispositive motion deadline to
January 20, 2014. (ECF No. 98.)

18

II.

19

As noted above, Plaintiff requested an extension of time to file his reply to Defendant

20

Mendez’s opposition. (ECF No. 94.) Thereafter, on October 29, 2013, Plaintiff filed his reply. (ECF

21

No. 95.) The requested extension and subsequent reply will not result in prejudice to defendants.

22

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s request for an extension of time to file his reply shall be granted nunc pro

23

tunc. No further action is required and the Court will address the pending motions for sanctions and

24

motion to compel in due course.

25

Discussion

Given the pending motions, the Court finds good cause to grant Plaintiff’s requested extension

26

of the discovery deadline in this action, along with the dispositive motion deadline. The extension of

27

the discovery deadline is for the limited purpose of resolving Plaintiff’s pending discovery motions

28

and allowing Plaintiff to file any motions to compel related to discovery requested from Defendant
2

1

Gonzales. The deadline to complete such discovery shall be extended to February 25, 2014. The

2

corresponding deadline to file dispositive motions shall be extended to April 25, 2014.

3

Based on the Court’s extension of both the discovery and the dispositive motion deadlines,

4

Defendants’ motion requesting modification of the dispositive motion deadline is no longer necessary

5

and shall be denied as moot.

6

III.

7

For the reasons stated, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED as follows:

8

1. Plaintiff’s motion for a thirty-day extension of time to reply to Defendant Mendez’s
opposition, filed on September 25, 2013, is GRANTED NUNC PRO TUNC. As Plaintiff

9

has filed his reply, no further action is necessary or required;

10
11

Conclusion and Order

2. Plaintiff’s motion for an extension of the discovery deadline is GRANTED. The extension

12

of the discovery deadline is for the limited purpose of resolving Plaintiff’s pending

13

discovery motions and allowing Plaintiff to file any motion to compel related to discovery

14

requested from Defendant Gonzales;

15

3. The deadline to complete such discovery is extended to February 25, 2014;

16

4. The deadline to file dispositive motions is extended to April 25, 2014; and

17

5. Defendants’ motion requesting modification of the dispositive motion deadline to January
20, 2014, is DENIED as moot.

18
19
20
21
22

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

/s/ Barbara

January 13, 2014

A. McAuliffe

_

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

23
24
25
26
27
28
3