Manago v. Davey et al

Filing 118

ORDER in Response to Defendants' Request for Clarification 117 ; ORDER STAYING Deadlines for Completion of Discovery and Filing of Dispositive Motions Pending Resolution of Settlement Conference, signed by Magistrate Judge Gary S. Austin on 5/1/2018: Discovery deadline: STAYED; Dispositive motions deadline: STAYED. (Hellings, J)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

STEWART MANAGO,

12

Plaintiff,

13

vs.

14

D. DAVEY, et al.,

15
16
17
18

Defendants.

1:16-cv-00399-LJO-GSA-PC
ORDER IN RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS’
REQUEST FOR CLARIFICATION
(ECF No. 117.)
ORDER STAYING DEADLINES FOR
COMPLETION OF DISCOVERY AND FILING
OF DISPOSITIVE MOTIONS, PENDING
RESOLUTION OF SETTLEMENT
CONFERENCE
Discovery deadline:
STAYED
Dispositive motions deadline: STAYED

19

Stewart Manago (“Plaintiff”) is a prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with

20

this civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This case now proceeds with the

21

First Amended Complaint filed on April 18, 2016, against defendants J. Acevedo, D. Davey, A.

22

Maxfield, E. Razo, M.V. Sexton, A. Valdez, and J. Vanderpoel (collectively, “Defendants”), on

23

Plaintiff’s First Amendment retaliation claims. (ECF No. 13.)

24

On April 26, 2018, Defendants filed a request for clarification of the court’s April 23,

25

2018, order. (ECF No. 117.) Specifically, Defendants request clarification on whether the

26

court’s order intended to stay the case or just the discovery deadline.

27

clarification because the May 29, 2018, deadline for completion of discovery is approaching

28

and they have not yet received discovery from Plaintiff or taken Plaintiff’s deposition.
1

Defendants seek

1

The court’s April 23, 2018, order found it beneficial to defer the scheduling of a

2

settlement conference in this case until after Plaintiff’s pending criminal case is resolved. (ECF

3

No. 115.) The order requires the parties to notify the court in writing, every three months, of

4

the status of Plaintiff’s pending criminal case. (Id.) The order did not stay this case, nor any

5

of the pending deadlines in this case. However, Defendants have shown good cause for the

6

court to stay the discovery and dispositive motions deadlines pending resolution of the

7

settlement conference requested by the parties.

8

Based on the foregoing and good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

9

1.

The pending deadlines for completion of discovery and the filing of dispositive

10

motions, scheduled for May 29, 2018, and July 29, 2018, respectively, are

11

stayed pending the resolution of the settlement conference to be scheduled in

12

this case; and

13

2.

14

The court shall issue a new scheduling order after resolution of the settlement
conference, if needed.

15
16
17
18

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

May 1, 2018

/s/ Gary S. Austin
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2