Caver v. Gomez et al

Filing 51

ORDER Vacating Pretrial Dispositive Motion Deadline and Requiring Parties to File Status Reports within Thirty Days Regarding Amendment to Scheduling Order signed by Magistrate Judge Sheila K. Oberto on 01/06/2014. Status Reports due by 2/10/2014. (Flores, E)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9
10

DENELL CAVER,
Plaintiff,

11
v.

12
13

E. GOMEZ, et al.,

Case No. 1:11-cv-01025-AWI-SKO PC
ORDER VACATING PRETRIAL
DISPOSITIVE MOTION DEADLINE AND
REQUIRING PARTIES TO FILE STATUS
REPORTS WITHIN THIRTY DAYS
REGARDING AMENDMENT TO
SCHEDULING ORDER

Defendants.

14

(Docs. 20 and 47)
15

_____________________________________/

16
17

Plaintiff Denell Caver, a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed this

18 civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on June 20, 2011. This action is proceeding on
19 Plaintiff’s second amended complaint, filed on April 10, 2012, against Defendants Gomez, Stark,
20 and Garcia for acting with deliberate indifference to Plaintiff’s safety, in violation of the Eighth
21 Amendment of the United States Constitution.
22

On April 2, 2013, Defendant Stark filed an answer, and the Court issued a scheduling order

23 on April 23, 2013. Defendant Gomez subsequently filed an answer on July 12, 2013, and on July
24 16, 2013, the Court issued an order extending application of the scheduling order to him.
25 Defendant Garcia has now filed an answer, and his recent appearance on December 23, 2013,
26 necessitates some amendments to the scheduling order.
27 ///
28 ///

1

Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

2

1.

The pretrial dispositive motion deadline of March 3, 2014, is VACATED; 1 and

3

2.

Within thirty (30) days from the date of service of this order, the parties shall file

4

status reports addressing (1) how much time is needed to conduct discovery between

5

Plaintiff and Defendant Garcia and (2) a proposed deadline to file pretrial dispositive

6

motions.

7
8

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

9

January 6, 2014

/s/ Sheila K. Oberto
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

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

1

Due to severe resource constraints, the Court declines to entertain separately-filed dispositive motions by
Defendants. Therefore, the deadline must be modified to accommodate discovery between Plaintiff and Defendant
Garcia, and to allow for one pretrial dispositive motion on behalf of all three defendants, should Defendants choose to
file a motion.

2