Puckett v. Corcoran Prison - CDCR, et al.

Filing 44

ORDER Denying Defendants' Ex Parte 40 Application to Modify Discovery and Scheduling Order signed by Magistrate Judge Dennis L. Beck on 02/26/2013. (Flores, E)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

8
9
10
11

DURRELL ANTHONY PUCKETT,

12
13
14
15

Plaintiff,
vs.
D. BAILEY, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

1:11cv01565 LJO DLB PC
ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS’
EX PARTE APPLICATION TO
MODIFY DISCOVERY AND
SCHEDULING ORDER
(Document 40)

16
17

Plaintiff Durrell Anthony Puckett, a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma

18

pauperis, has filed this civil rights action seeking relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Pursuant to the

19

April 16, 2012, Discovery and Scheduling Order, the last day to file unenumerated 12(b)(6)

20
21
22

motions was June 16, 2012. The dispositive motion deadline was February 25, 2013.
On February 25, 2013, Defendants filed a Motion for Summary Judgment. They also
filed an Ex Parte Request to present an exhaustion argument in the Motion for Summary

23

Judgment. According to Declaration of M. Wrosch in support of the application, Defendants
24
25
26
27
28

mistakenly believed that Plaintiff’s action involved one cell extraction. Upon taking Plaintiff’s
deposition in November 2012, however, Defendants learned that Plaintiff’s action involved two
cell extractions. Defendants believe that the claim relating to the second cell extraction is
unexhausted and now seek ex parte relief. Wrosch Decl. ¶¶ 6-8.
1

1
2
3
4
5

Essentially, Defendants seek to modify the Discovery and Scheduling Order based on
information they learned during Plaintiff’s November 20, 2012, deposition. Their decision to do
so by ex parte application, filed on the last day to file dispositive motions and three months after
their discovery of new information, is unexplained. The Court doesn’t fault counsel for making
an erroneous conclusion, but rather questions why this request wasn’t done by noticed motion.

6

Even assuming that counsel needed a month to investigate exhaustion of the second

7
8
9
10

incident, there was still two months left prior to the dispositive motion deadline in which to bring
a noticed motion on an issue that Plaintiff deserved an opportunity to oppose. There is no
explanation as to the delay.
Accordingly, Defendants’ request for ex parte relief is DENIED. The request should

11
12

have been made by noticed motion and ex parte relief is therefore inappropriate. The Court will

13

not consider the portion of the Motion for Summary Judgment addressing exhaustion, and

14

Plaintiff need not oppose the exhaustion issue.

15
16

IT IS SO ORDERED.

17

Dated:

18

/s/ Dennis

February 26, 2013

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
DEAC_Signature-END:

19

L. Beck

3b142a

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2