Villery v. California Department of Corrections, et al.

Filing 166

ORDER Directing Defendants to File Response to 165 Plaintiff's Motion to Modify Discovery and Scheduling Order, signed by Magistrate Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe on 07/12/2021. Response Due Within Fourteen-Days. (Maldonado, C)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

JARED M. VILLERY,

12

Plaintiff,

13

v.

14

CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF
CORRECTIONS, et al.,

15

Case No. 1:15-cv-00987-DAD-BAM (PC)
ORDER DIRECTING DEFENDANTS TO FILE
RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO
MODIFY DISCOVERY AND SCHEDULING
ORDER
(ECF No. 165)

Defendants.

16

FOURTEEN (14) DAY DEADLINE

17
Plaintiff Jared M. Villery (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma

18
19

pauperis in this civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action proceeds against

20

Defendants Kendall, Acosta, Jones, Guerrero, Woodard,1 and Grimmig for deliberate indifference

21

in violation of the Eighth Amendment, and against Defendants Allison2 for promulgation of a

22

policy to deny single cell housing for inmates with serious mental disorders in violation of the

23

Eighth Amendment. Plaintiff’s claims arise out of allegations that he developed Post-Traumatic

24
1

25
26
27
28

2

Erroneously sued as “Woodward.”

Effective October 1, 2020, Secretary Allison has assumed the position of Secretary of the
California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (“CDCR”). Under Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 25(d), Secretary Allison should be substituted for former Secretaries Beard and Kernan
with respect to Plaintiff’s claim for a violation of his rights based on a policy promulgated in the
Secretary’s official capacity.
1

1

Stress Disorder (“PTSD”) while in the custody of the California Department of Corrections and

2

Rehabilitation (“CDCR”). Plaintiff claims that at multiple institutions and over several years, his

3

PTSD was not properly considered by prison officials in determining his housing status.

4

On December 15, 2020, the Court issued an order extending the deadline for the

5

completion of all discovery, including filing all motions to compel discovery, to June 11, 2021.

6

(ECF No. 154.)

7

Currently before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion to modify the discovery and scheduling

8

order, dated June 11, 2021 and filed with the Court June 17, 2021. (ECF No. 165.) In his

9

motion, Plaintiff requests that the Court extend the current deadline for the filing of any motions

10
11

to compel up to and including August 11, 2021. (Id.) Defendants have not filed a response.
The Court finds it appropriate to obtain a response from Defendants regarding the motion.

12

Accordingly, Defendants shall file a response to Plaintiff’s motion within fourteen (14) days

13

from the date of service of this order. Plaintiff’s reply, if any, is due within seven (7) days from

14

the date of service of Defendants’ response.

15
16
17
18

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

/s/ Barbara

July 12, 2021

A. McAuliffe

_

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2