Miller v. Najera, et. al.
ORDER RE MOTION TO COMPEL AND MISCELLANEOUS REQUESTS 61 signed by Chief Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill on 8/4/2017. (Lundstrom, T)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
STEVEN R. MILLER,
ORDER RE MOTION TO COMPEL
AND MISCELLANEOUS REQUESTS
(ECF NO. 61)
ALBERT NAJERA, et al.,
Pro se Plaintiff Steven Miller brings this case against Defendants, alleging failure to protect and
14 deliberate indifference claims under the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments. See ECF No. 32. The
15 Discovery and Scheduling Order, issued February 1, 2017, set May 1, 2017 as the deadline for filing
16 “[a]ll motions asserting failure to exhaust administrative remedies.” ECF No. 41 at 3. On May 18, 2017,
17 the Court held a Trial Scheduling Conference, ECF No. 58, during which Fresno County Counsel, Scott
18 Hawkins, requested additional time to file any motion regarding exhaustion. Plaintiff, who appeared at
19 the hearing telephonically, did not object, and the request was granted. Specifically, a dispositive
20 motions deadline was set for September 5, 2017, see ECF No. 59, and the Court specifically indicated
21 that motions regarding exhaustion would be permitted up to that date.
On July 31, 2017, Plaintiff filed a “Motion to Compel a Response for Failure to Meet Exhaustion
23 Motion Filing Deadline . . . and Failure in Notification of Fresno Defendants Brief Statement From
24 Telephonic Hearing.” ECF No. 61. First, Plaintiff notes, correctly, that no Defendant filed any motion
25 asserting failure to exhaust administrative remedies by May 1, 2017, the deadline set forth in the
February 1, 2017 Discovery and Scheduling Order. Id. at 1. He then asks the Court to compel Defendant
to file “some sort of motion seeking the resolution of summary judgment” or “find the Defendants in
procedural default and grant a Summary Judgment to Plaintiff under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
Rule 54(b).” Id. at 2. This request is DENIED. The relevant deadline for filing any motion regarding
exhaustion was extended to September 5, 2017.
Second, Plaintiff appears to be suggesting that the Fresno County Defendants failed to file a
“brief statement” prior to the trial setting conference held on May 18, 2017. See id. at 1. This is
incorrect. The Fresno County Defendants did include a brief statement of the case within their
scheduling conference statement filed in advance of the trial setting conference. See ECF No. 57 at 1-2.
10 According to the proof of service, the document containing that brief statement was served on Plaintiff
11 via United States mail at his address of record. Id. at 4. The Court therefore sees no basis for Plaintiff’s
12 request, which the Court DENIES as moot.
14 IT IS SO ORDERED.
/s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill _____
August 4, 2017
UNITED STATES CHIEF DISTRICT JUDGE
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?