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)
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?