King v. Biter et al
Filing
56
ORDER Regarding Defendants' 55 Request for Clarification of the Court's August 23, 2017, Discovery and Scheduling Order signed by Magistrate Judge Stanley A. Boone on 08/31/2017. (Flores, E)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
LARRY DONNELL KING, SR.,
12
Plaintiff,
13
14
v.
M.D. BITER, et al.,
15
Defendants.
16
ORDER REGARDING DEFENDANTS’
REQUEST FOR CLARIFICATION OF THE
COURT’S AUGUST 23, 2017, DISCOVERY AND
SCHEDULING ORDER
[ECF No. 55]
action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
Currently before the Court is Defendants’ request for clarification regarding the Court’s
19
20
Case No.: 1:15-cv-00414-LJO-SAB (PC)
Plaintiff Larry Donnell King, Sr. is appearing pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights
17
18
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
August 23, 2017, discovery and scheduling order, filed August 29, 2017.
On January 30, 2017, the Court granted Defendants’ motion to dismiss as to Defendant
21
22
Tallerico with leave to amend, and denied the motion to dismiss based on qualified immunity as to
23
Defendants Tarnoff, Acebedo, Castro, Lawless and Biter. (ECF No. 33.) On February 13, 2017,
24
Plaintiff notified the Court of his intent not to file an amended complaint and to proceed on his claims
25
against Defendants Tarnoff, Acebedo, Castro, Lawless and Biter. (ECF No. 34.) On February 15,
26
2017, the Court directed the Clerk of Court to terminate Defendant Tallerico and ordered all other
27
named Defendants to file a response to the complaint within twenty days. (ECF No. 35.)
28
///
1
On March 7, 2017, Defendants filed an answer to the complaint. (ECF No. 36.) On March 8,
1
2
2017, the Court issued the discovery and scheduling order. (ECF No. 37.)
On June 12, 2017, Plaintiff filed a motion to amend the complaint, along with a copy of a
3
4
second amended complaint. (ECF No. 43.) On July 5, 2017, Defendants filed a statement of non-
5
opposition to Plaintiff’s motion to amend. (ECF No. 45.) On July 24, 2017, the Court granted
6
Plaintiff’s motion to amend the complaint to clarify the date of the first incident as October 18, 2011,
7
not August 10, 2011, and granted Defendants thirty days to file a response to the second amended
8
complaint. (ECF No. 48.)
9
On August 22, 2017, Defendants filed an answer to the second amended complaint. (ECF No.
10
53.) In light of Defendants’ answer, the Court issued a subsequent discovery and scheduling order on
11
August 23, 2017, setting new deadlines for the filing of dispositive motions, amendment of the
12
pleadings, and discovery. (ECF No. 54.)
Defendants now seek clarification that the second scheduling order issued August 23, 2017, is
13
14
the controlling scheduling order in this case. The Court advises the parties that the August 23, 2017,
15
order supersedes the initial discovery and scheduling order and is the controlling order in this case in
16
light of the fact that Plaintiff amended the complaint and additional discovery may be necessary.
17
18
IT IS SO ORDERED.
19
Dated:
20
August 31, 2017
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
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?