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)

Download PDF
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

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?