Hightower v. High Desert State Prison et al

Filing 105

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Edmund F. Brennan on 03/16/12 ordering that plaitntiff's 01/30/12 motions to modify the scheduling order 93 and to compel defendant's discovery responses 94 are denied. (Plummer, M)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

CURTIS HIGHTOWER,
Plaintiff,

12
13

No. CIV S-08-0228 MCE EFB P

Defendant.

11

ORDER

vs.
W. PATTON,

14

/

15
16

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding without counsel in an action brought under 42

17

U.S.C. § 1983. He moves to modify the scheduling order and to compel defendant Patton’s

18

discovery responses. Dckt. Nos. 93, 94. Discovery closed on January 28, 2012, and dispositive

19

motions were to be filed by February 12, 2012. Dckt. No. 85, 65.

20

In his motion to modify the scheduling order, plaintiff asks that “all motions turned in

21

from August 2011 until now January 21, 2012,” be accepted “with a 60 day extention [sic], from

22

this date, to each deadline . . . .” Dckt. No. 93 at 2.1 Plaintiff does not clearly articulate exactly

23

how he wishes to have the schedule in this action modified, nor does he demonstrate that there is

24

good cause for any modification. The court has repeatedly informed plaintiff that a schedule will

25
1

26

These and subsequent page number citations to plaintiff’s filings are to the page number
reflected on the court’s CM/ECF system and not to page numbers assigned by plaintiff.
1

1

not be modified unless he demonstrates good cause. See Dckt. Nos. 95, 88, 80. Plaintiff’s

2

motion must therefore be denied.

3

In his motion to compel, plaintiff appears to seek defendant’s responses to his requests

4

for admissions.2 Dckt. No. 94 at 9. Defendant’s responses to those requests are attached to

5

plaintiff’s motion to modify the scheduling order. Dckt. No. 93 at 18-24. With the exception of

6

one request, defendant objected to each request as calling for legal or expert opinion, and

7

claimed to lack sufficient knowledge to either admit or deny the request. Id. Defendant states in

8

his opposition that he has since served supplemental discovery responses on plaintiff in order to

9

address the issues raised in plaintiff’s motion to compel. Dckt. No. 103 at 2; see also Dckt. No.

10

104, Ex. 1 (copy of defendant’s supplemental responses). Defendant asserts that his

11

supplemental responses are his best attempt to respond to plaintiff’s requests for admissions.

12

Dckt. No. 103 at 2. As plaintiff did not file a reply brief or otherwise challenge the sufficiency

13

of defendant’s supplemental responses, it appears that plaintiff is now satisfied with defendant’s

14

discovery responses, and that plaintiff’s motion to compel is therefore moot.

15

Accordingly, it is hereby ordered that plaintiff’s January 30, 2012 motions to modify the

16

scheduling order (Dckt. No. 93) and to compel defendant’s discovery responses (Dckt. No. 94)

17

are denied.

18

DATED: March 16, 2012.

19
20
21
22
23
24
2

25
26

The proof of service filed with the motion to compel is dated January 24, 2012. Dckt. No.
94 at 14-15. Plaintiff’s motion is therefore timely. See Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266, 276 (1988)
(prisoner’s notice of appeal deemed timely filed on the date it was delivered to prison staff for
delivery to the court).
2