Atcherley v. Clark et al

Filing 197

ORDER DIRECTING Defendants to Respond to Plaintiff's Objections to Defendants' November 4, 2014, Answer to Second Amended Complaint, signed by Magistrate Judge Dennis L. Beck on 1/5/2015. Response Due Within Fourteen Days. (Marrujo, C)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

8
9
10
11

WILBUR ATCHERLEY,

12
13
14
15

Plaintiff,
vs.
CLARK, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

1:12cv00225 LJO DLB PC
ORDER DIRECTING DEFENDANTS TO
RESPOND TO PLAINTIFF’S OBJECTIONS
TO DEFENDANTS’ NOVEMBER 4, 2014,
ANSWER TO SECOND AMENDED
COMPLAINT
(Document 177)

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23

Plaintiff Wilbur Atcherley (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma
pauperis in this civil rights action.
On September 10, 2014, the Court granted Plaintiff’s motion to file an amended
complaint in part. Specifically, Plaintiff was permitted to name Doe Defendants and add
allegations against them. The Court also stated, “[a]s the Second Amended Complaint will not
alter any allegations against any Defendant who has appeared, amended answers are not
necessary.” ECF No. 110, at 7.

24
25
26
27

On November 4, 2014, Defendants filed an answer to the Second Amended Complaint.
On December 1, 2014, Plaintiff filed “objections” to paragraphs 49 and 50 of the
November 4, 2014, answer. Plaintiff argues that Defendants have altered these paragraphs from

28
1

1
2

admissions to denials. He contends that he relied on the admissions during the discovery
process, and discovery is now closed.

3
4

The Court ORDERS Defendants to respond to this objection within fourteen (14) days of
the date of service of this order. In their response, Defendants should explain the alterations, as

5

well as their position on reopening discovery to permit Plaintiff to propound discovery related to
6
7
8

their changes.1 Plaintiff does not need to file a reply.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

9

Dated:

10

January 5, 2015

/s/ Dennis

L. Beck

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
1

28

The Court notes that Defendants have opposed Plaintiff’s pending motion to reopen discovery, though his motion
did not involve discovery relating to the altered paragraphs in the answer.
2