Williams v. Wasco State Prison et al

Filing 80

ORDER GRANTING 63 Defendants' Motion to Modify Scheduling Order as to Dispositive Motion Deadline signed by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Seng on 9/5/2017. Dispositive motion deadline STAYED until 45 days after District Judge rules on issue of exhaustion. (Jessen, A)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 12 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 13 14 LANCE WILLIAMS, 15 16 17 18 19 20 Plaintiff, v. Case No. 1:14-cv-01714-DAD-MJS (PC) ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO MODIFY SCHEDULING ORDER AS TO DISPOSITIVE MOTION DEADLINE WASCO STATE PRISON, et al., (ECF No. 63) Defendants. DISPOSITIVE MOTION DEADLINE STAYED UNTIL 45 DAYS AFTER DISTRICT JUDGE RULES ON ISSUE OF EXHAUSTION 21 22 23 Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil 24 rights action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This case proceeds on Plaintiff’s first 25 amended complaint against Defendant Salvatore and John Doe 1 for medical indifference 26 in violation of the Eighth Amendment. (ECF No. 10.) 27 On December 21, 2016, this Court issued findings and recommendations to deny 28 Defendants’ motion for summary judgment on exhaustion grounds and set the case for 1 an evidentiary hearing. (ECF No. 55.) On March 17, 2017, the District Judge assigned to 2 the case adopted the findings and recommendations in full. (ECF No. 69.) Accordingly, 3 the case was set for a June 23, 2017 evidentiary hearing on the issue of exhaustion. 4 (ECF No. 70.) However, at the parties’ request, that hearing was stayed pending the 5 results of a settlement conference on August 9, 2017. (ECF Nos. 71 & 72.) That 6 conference was unsuccessful, and the evidentiary hearing was reset for November 3, 7 2017. (ECF No. 77.) 8 Pursuant to the scheduling order filed on April 11, 2016, the dispositive motion 9 deadline was February 21, 2017. (ECF No. 36.) Defendants have moved to modify the 10 dispositive motion deadline pending the results of the evidentiary hearing. (ECF No. 63.) 11 Defendants argue that since a substantive motion for summary judgment will only be 12 necessary if the Court rules in Plaintiff’s favor at the evidentiary hearing, the Court should 13 vacate the current dispositive motion deadline and re-set the deadline to a date after it 14 rules on the exhaustion issue. (P. & A. in Supp. of Mot. to Modify Sched. Order (ECF No. 15 63-1.) Plaintiff has not opposed the motion and the time to do so has passed. 16 A Court may modify its scheduling order upon a finding of good cause. Johnson v. 17 Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 609 (9th Cir. 1992). The Court finds good 18 cause exists to stay the dispositive motion deadline pending resolution of Defendants’ 19 exhaustion motion. Accordingly, Defendants’ motion is HEREBY GRANTED. The 20 dispositive motion deadline, originally set for February 21, 2017, is stayed until forty-five 21 (45) days after the District Judge rules on the issue of exhaustion. 22 23 24 25 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: September 5, 2017 /s/ Michael J. Seng UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 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?