Jacobsen v. Curran et al

Filing 85

ORDER Granting in Part and Denying in Part Plaintiff's 62 Motion to Postpone all Proceedings; ORDER Granting Defendant's 77 Motion to Vacate or Continue Dispositive Motions Deadline signed by Magistrate Judge Jeremy D. Peterson on 06/06/2018. (Flores, E)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

MICHAEL NEIL JACOBSEN,

12

Plaintiff,
v.

13

OFFICER CURRAN, et al.,

14

Defendants.

15

Case No. 1:16-cv-01050-LJO-JDP
ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND
DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFF’S MOTION
TO POSTPONE ALL PROCEEDINGS
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S
MOTION TO VACATE OR CONTINUE
DISPOSITIVE MOTIONS DEADLINE

16
(Doc. Nos. 62, 77)

17

Plaintiff Michael Neil Jacobsen is proceeding pro se in this civil rights action under

18
19

42 U.S.C. § 1983. The district judge recently entered an order resolving defendants’ motions for

20

summary judgment for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. (Doc. No. 82.) This case will

21

proceed on plaintiff’s first amended complaint against Defendant Ducles Gonzalez for inadequate

22

medical care in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment.1 (Doc. No. 68, at 4.)
Plaintiff has asked the court to “postpone all proceedings and rulings” due to his March

23
24

11, 2018, release from confinement. (Doc. No. 62.) He states that he is seeking the services of an

25

attorney, and that he should be able to obtain representation within four weeks of his release.

26
27
28

1

Defendants Dr. Burnett, Timothy Ganiron, Genevieve Garcia, and Minerva Mangulabnan have
been added as defendants to this case but have not yet been served with process. (Doc. Nos. 68,
73.)
1

1

Defendant Ducles Gonzalez filed a motion asking that the court vacate the June 18, 2018

2

dispositive motions deadline while her motion for summary judgment concerning exhaustion is

3

pending. (Doc. No. 77.) In support of her request, defendant states that additional defendants

4

have been added to the case and argues that it would be more efficient for all defendants to file

5

dispositive motions simultaneously.

6

To the extent that plaintiff has requested a stay of this case, the court does not find good

7

cause to grant the request. However, the court finds good cause to reset the discovery cut-off and

8

the dispositive motions deadline.

9
10

Accordingly,
1. Plaintiff’s motion to postpone all proceedings (Doc. No. 62) is granted in part and

11
12

denied in part;
2. defendant’s request to vacate or continue the dispositive motion filing deadline (Doc.

13
14

No. 77) is granted;
3. the deadline for the completion of all discovery, including filing of all motions to

15
16

compel discovery, is continued to October 1, 2018; and
4. the dispositive motions deadline is continued to December 3, 2018.

17
18
19

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

June 6, 2018

/s/

20

Jeremy D. Peterson

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2