Moore v. Gipson et al

Filing 117

ORDER Requiring Plaintiff to Respond to Defendants' Motion to Modify Second Scheduling Order and to Reset Deadlines re 116 , signed by Magistrate Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe on 2/13/19. Deadline: 03/08/2019. (Gonzalez, R)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11
12

1:13-cv-01820-BAM (PC)

MERRICK JOSE MOORE,
Plaintiff,

13
14
15

ORDER REQUIRING PLAINTIFF TO
RESPOND TO DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO
MODIFY SECOND SCHEDULING ORDER
AND TO RESET DEADLINES

v.
CASAS, et al,

(ECF No. 116)

Defendants.

Deadline: March 8, 2019

16
17
18

Plaintiff Merrick Jose Moore (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in

19

forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action proceeds on

20

Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment claims for excessive force against Defendants Casas, Meier,

21

Childress, and Adams, and for failure to intervene against Defendants Ford and Thornburg. All

22

parties have consented to the jurisdiction of a United States Magistrate Judge. (ECF Nos. 7, 74.)

23

Pursuant to the Court’s second scheduling order issued on January 4, 2019, trial is currently set to

24

begin on May 14, 2019. (ECF No. 112.)

25

On February 12, 2019, Defendants filed a motion to modify the second scheduling order

26

and to reset the remaining pre-trial deadlines. (ECF No. 116.) Specifically, Defendants state that

27

Defendant Adams has an unavoidable conflict with the currently scheduled trial date, and request

28

that the Court continue the trial to the next available dates of September 10 or 17, 2019. (Id.)
1

1

The Court finds that a response from Plaintiff would be beneficial. Accordingly, Plaintiff

2

shall file an opposition or statement of non-opposition to the motion, (ECF No. 116), on or before

3

March 8, 2019.

4
5
6

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

/s/ Barbara

February 13, 2019

A. McAuliffe

_

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2