Johnson v. Honnold

Filing 36

ORDER Granting 35 Defendant's Motion to Modify the Scheduling Order, signed by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Seng on 7/16/16. (Verduzco, M)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 VANCE EDWARD JOHNSON, Plaintiff, 12 13 v. 14 S. HONNOLD, 15 1:15-cv-01118-LJO-MJS (PC) ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO MODIFY THE SCHEDULING ORDER (ECF No. 35) Defendant. 16 17 18 19 20 21 Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The action proceeds on Plaintiff’s complaint against Defendant S. Honnold for medical indifference in violation of the Eighth Amendment. 22 Pending before the Court is Defendant’s July 8, 2016, motion to modify the 23 Court’s Discovery and Scheduling Order, specifically the July 19, 2016, deadline for filing 24 a motion for summary judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56. Defendant so 25 moves on the ground that new counsel recently substituted in; Defendant is awaiting 26 discovery responses from Plaintiff that will inform the investigation and provide grounds 27 for an exhaustion motion; and a necessary declarant in Defendant’s exhaustion motion, 28 1 1 the Custodian of Records for the Office of Appeals, is unavailable from July 18 through 2 July 29, 2016. Good cause appearing, Defendant’s motion will be granted. See Fed. R. 3 Civ. P. 16(b)(4). 4 5 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 1. Defendant’s motion to modify the scheduling order (ECF No. 35) is GRANTED; 6 7 2. The April 19, 2016, Discovery and Scheduling Order (ECF No. 28) is amended to allow Defendant to file a motion for summary judgment for failure to exhaust 8 administrative remedies on or before August 18, 2016. All other dates shall 9 remain the same. 10 11 12 13 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: July 16, 2016 /s/ Michael J. Seng UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 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?