Thomas v. Lewis et al
ORDER GRANTING Plaintiff's Motion to Extend Time to File Second Amended Complaint; ORDER DENYING Motion to Compel 19 , 20 , signed by Magistrate Judge Erica P. Grosjean on 1/24/17: 90-Day Deadline . (Attachments: # 1 Amended Complaint - blank form) (Hellings, J)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
JOHNNY C. THOMAS,
J. LEWIS, et al.,
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION
TO EXTEND TIME TO FILE SECOND
(ECF No. 19)
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO COMPEL
(ECF No. 20)
Johnny C. Thomas (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma
pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
complaint on April 14, 2016. (ECF No. 1).
Plaintiff filed his initial
On November 1, 2016, the Court issued an order
finding that Plaintiff stated a cognizable claim for deliberate indifference to serious medical needs
against a “John Doe” Defendant, an unknown surgeon at Kern Valley State Prison (“KVSP”) who
removed a cyst from Plaintiff’s mouth. (ECF No. 15.) The Court also found that service of the
First Amended Complaint was not yet appropriate because the John Doe defendant has not yet
been identified. (Id.) Therefore, the Court granted Plaintiff ninety days to identify the John Doe
defendant and stated that Plaintiff may request leave issuance of any third party subpoenas,
including on the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (“CDCR”). (Id.)
On December 7, 2016, the Court granted Plaintiff’s request to issue a subpoena duces
tecum to be served upon the Litigation Coordinator at Kern Valley State Prison. (ECF No. 17 at
3.) That order directed the U.S. Marshal’s Office to serve the subpoena within 20 days and file a
return of service after completion of service. (Id.) The issued subpoena had a compliance date of
February 6, 2017 at 5:00 p.m.
On January 17, 2017, Plaintiff filed two motions: 1) a motion to extend time to file a
Second Amended Complaint (ECF No. 19); and 2) a motion for an order compelling discovery
(ECF No. 20).
The Court finds good cause to grant the motion for an extension of time to file a Second
Amended Complaint. (ECF No. 19.) Plaintiff is granted ninety (90) days from the date of service
of this order in which to file a Second Amended Complaint.
As to the motion to compel discovery (ECF No. 20), the Court denies the motion as
premature. The U.S. Marshal has not yet filed a return of service so it is unclear at this point as to
whether service has been successfully effectuated. Even if proof of service had been returned, the
subpoena had a compliance date of February 6, 2017.1
IT IS SO ORDERED.
January 24, 2017
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
It should be noted that Plaintiff has also requested monetary sanctions in the amount
$5,000 for “his reasonable expenses in obtaining this order.” (ECF No. 20 at 2.) While Plaintiff
understandably places a high value on the time he used to draft his motion, he is advised that the
Court does not look favorably upon unsubstantiated or frivolous requests for monetary sanctions.
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?