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)
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?