Harper v. California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation et al

Filing 40

ORDER Granting 34 Motion to Modify Discovery and Scheduling Order, signed by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Seng on 1/20/14. Nunc Pro Tunc. (Gonzalez, R)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JASON S. HARPER, 12 13 14 15 Plaintiff, CASE NO. 1:14-cv-00115-AWI-MJS (PC) ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO MODIFY DISCOVERY AND SCHEDULING ORDER v. (ECF No. 34) CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND REHABILITATION, et al., 16 17 Defendants. 18 Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil 19 rights action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The action proceeds against 20 Defendants Curry, Huffman, and Rivero on Plaintiff’s First and Eighth Amendment 21 claims. (ECF No. 12.) 22 On October 2, 2014, the Court issued a discovery and scheduling order setting 23 January 2, 2015 as the deadline for filing motions for summary judgment on the basis of 24 failure to exhaust administrative remedies. (ECF No. 28.) On December 31, 2014, 25 Defendants filed a motion to modify the discovery and scheduling order and to extend 26 the exhaustion motion filing deadline to January 12, 2015. (ECF No. 34.) Defendants 27 then filed their exhaustion motion on January 12, 2015. (ECF No. 35.) 28 1 1 Defendants have presented good cause for modifying the discovery and 2 scheduling order to extend the exhaustion motion deadline. Accordingly, their motion 3 (ECF No. 34) is HEREBY GRANTED. The deadline for filing motions for summary 4 judgment on the basis of failure to exhaust administrative remedies is extended nunc pro 5 tunc to and including January 12, 2015. 6 7 8 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: January 20, 2015 /s/ 9 Michael J. Seng UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 10 11 12 13 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?