York v. Stewart et al

Filing 95

ORDER DIRECTING Defendants to File a Response to Plaintiff's 93 Motion to Modify Second Scheduling Order, signed by Magistrate Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe on 01/02/2020. (Defendants' Response due on or before 1/17/2020. Plaintiff's Reply to Response due on or before 1/31/2020.) (Orozco, A)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 REGINALD RAY YORK, Case No. 1:15-cv-01828-DAD-BAM (PC) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER DIRECTING DEFENDANTS TO FILE A RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO MODIFY SECOND SCHEDULING ORDER 13 14 v. G. GARCIA, et al., (ECF No. 93) 15 Defendants. 16 Plaintiff Reginald Ray York is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights action 17 18 pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Currently before the Court is Plaintiff’s “memorandum of points and authorities in support 19 20 of the Plaintiff’s motion to modify the attendance of unincarcerated witnesses and second 21 scheduling order,” filed on December 23, 2019. (ECF No. 93.) The Court interprets Plaintiff’s 22 filing as a motion to modify the Court’s November 12, 2019 second scheduling order, (ECF No. 23 88). 24 Specifically, Plaintiff requests a 60-day extension of the deadlines for filing a notice of the 25 names and locations for the attendance of unincarcerated witnesses who refuse to testify 26 voluntarily, a motion for the attendance of incarcerated witnesses, and his pretrial statement, and 27 a 60-day continuance of the telephonic trial confirmation hearing. Plaintiff asserts that he needs 28 the additional time because his motion for reconsideration of the undersigned’s order denying 1 1 Plaintiff’s motion for a court order to compel participation in a mandatory settlement conference 2 and appointment of counsel is currently pending before the District Judge and he is also going 3 through multiple surgeries for his various medical conditions. 4 In this case, the Court finds that it is appropriate to require Defendants Garcia and 5 Neighbors to file a response to Plaintiff’s motion to modify the Court’s November 12, 2019 6 second scheduling order. Therefore, it is HEREBY ORDERED that Defendants Garcia and 7 Neighbors shall file a response to Plaintiff’s motion to modify the Court’s November 12, 2019 8 second scheduling order, (ECF No. 93), on or before January 17, 2020. Plaintiff’s reply to Defendants’ response, if any, must be filed on or before January 31, 9 10 2020. 11 12 13 14 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: /s/ Barbara January 2, 2020 A. McAuliffe _ UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 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?