Anderson v. Gonzales et al

Filing 44

ORDER GRANTING 43 Defendants' Motion to Modify Discovery and Scheduling Order and ORDER VACATING the Scheduling Order 34 signed by Magistrate Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe on 7/7/2017. (Jessen, A)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JOSEPH E. ANDERSON, 12 13 14 15 Plaintiff, v. ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO MODIFY DISCOVERY AND SCHEDULING ORDER (ECF No. 43) A. GONZALES, et al., Defendants. 16 17 Case No. 1:14-cv-00362-AWI-BAM (PC) ORDER VACATING THE SCHEDULING ORDER (ECF No. 34) Plaintiff Joseph E. Anderson (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in 18 forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action proceeds on 19 Plaintiff’s second amended complaint against Defendant Laita for excessive force in violation of 20 the Eighth Amendment, and against Defendant Gonzales for failure to intervene in the use of 21 excessive force in violation of the Eighth Amendment and failure to protect Plaintiff from assault 22 at the hands of another inmate in violation of the Eighth Amendment. 23 On August 29, 2016, the Court issued a discovery and scheduling order setting the 24 deadline for all dispositive motions (other than a motion for summary judgment for failure to 25 exhaust) for July 10, 2017. (ECF No. 34.) 26 On November 28, 2016, Defendants Laita and Gonzales filed a motion for summary 27 judgment on exhaustion grounds. (ECF No. 36.) Plaintiff filed his opposition, (ECF No. 39), and 28 Defendants filed their reply, (ECF No. 40). That motion is pending. 1 1 Currently before the Court is Defendants’ timely motion to modify the discovery and 2 scheduling order. (ECF No. 43.) Although Plaintiff has not had an opportunity to respond to 3 Defendants’ motion, the Court finds a response unnecessary. Local Rule 230(l). 4 Defendants assert that it would be a waste of the parties’ and the Court’s resources to 5 require Defendants to file a motion for summary judgment on the merits before the pending 6 motion for summary judgment on exhaustion grounds has been decided. If the motion is granted, 7 Defendant Laita will be dismissed from this action and there will be no need for him to file a 8 motion for summary judgment on the merits. Conversely, if the exhaustion motion is denied, 9 Defendants can avoid filing piecemeal dispositive motions. (ECF No. 43.) 10 11 Having considered the request, the Court finds good cause to vacate the dispositive motion deadline in the August 29, 2016, scheduling order. Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4). 12 Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that the dispositive motion deadline set forth in 13 the August 29, 2016, scheduling order is VACATED. Once the motion for summary judgment 14 on exhaustion grounds has been resolved, the Court will issue an amended discovery and 15 scheduling order for the filing of dispositive motions. 16 17 18 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: /s/ Barbara July 7, 2017 A. McAuliffe _ UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 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?