Ransom v. Aguirre et al

Filing 151

ORDER Denying Defendants' 143 Motion to Vacate or Modify Discovery and Scheduling Order as Moot, signed by Magistrate Judge Gary S. Austin on 6/21/17. (Gonzalez, R)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

BRYAN E. RANSOM,

12
13
14

Plaintiff,
vs.
AGUIRRE, et al.,

15

1:12-cv-01343-DAD-GSA-PC
ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS’
MOTION TO VACATE OR
MODIFY DISCOVERY AND
SCHEDULING ORDER AS MOOT
(ECF No. 143.)

Defendants.

16
17
18

Bryan E. Ransom (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with this civil rights

19

action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This case now proceeds with Plaintiff’s First Amended

20

Complaint filed on March 6, 2013, against defendants Aguirre, Alanis, Clark, Cortez, Kernan,

21

Mariscal, Messick, Moon, Perez, Singh, Ulit, Vallejo, Vogel, Wang, and Wooden (collectively,

22

“Defendants”), on Plaintiff’s claims for retaliation, adverse conditions of confinement,

23

inadequate medical care, and state tort violations, arising from events occurring in 2011. (ECF

24

No. 12.)

25

On December 6, 2016, Defendants filed a motion to vacate or modify the court’s

26

discovery and scheduling order issued on August 9, 2016. (ECF No. 133.) Defendants argue

27

that good cause exists to vacate or modify the December 6, 2016, discovery deadline, the

28

January 5, 2017, deadline to file motions to compel, and the March 6, 2017, deadline for filing
1

1

dispositive motions.

2

deadlines, because Defendants have filed an unopposed motion to compel and a motion for

3

terminating sanctions, which may resolve this case without the need for further discovery or

4

law and motion. Defendants also assert that Plaintiff has not been participating in this case.

Defendants argue that good cause exists to vacate or modify these

5

Defendants’ motion is moot because all of the deadlines established by the court in the

6

August 9, 2016, discovery and scheduling order have now expired and have not been extended.

7

Therefore, Defendants’ motion shall be denied as moot.

8
9

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendants’ motion to vacate or modify
the court’s discovery and scheduling order, filed on December 6, 2016, is DENIED as moot.

10
11
12
13

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

June 21, 2017

/s/ Gary S. Austin
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2