Turner v. Dickinson et al

Filing 45

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Dale A. Drozd on 10/12/2012 ORDERING that plaintiff's 39 motion to compel discovery is DENIED; plaintiff's 43 request for an extension of time to file a motion to deny or stay defendant's motion for summary judgment is DENIED; within 30 days, plaintiff shall file his opposition to defendant Rohrer's motion for summary judgment. (Yin, K)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

NATHAN KEVIN TURNER,

11
12
13
14

Plaintiff,
vs.
KATHLINE DICKINSON, et al.,
Defendants.

15
16

No. 2:09-cv-00632-GEB-DAD P

ORDER
/

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a civil rights complaint

17

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Before the court is plaintiff’s motion to compel discovery and

18

request for an extension of time to file a motion seeking the denial or stay of defendant Rohrer’s

19

motion for summary judgment.

20

On February 1, 2012, the court filed a discovery and scheduling order in this

21

action. (Doc. No. 36.) In that order, the discovery deadline was set at May 25, 2012, and the

22

parties were informed that discovery requests needed to be served no later than sixty-days prior

23

to that deadline. (See Doc. No. 36 at 6.) Plaintiff’s discovery requests were not served sixty-

24

days prior to the deadline established in the scheduling order. In opposition to plaintiff’s motion

25

to compel, defendant Rohrer acknowledges that he was served with two sets of requests for

26

admissions, interrogatories, and request for production of documents by plaintiff. However,
1

1

counsel for defendant Rohrer has attached to the opposition to the motion to compel copies of

2

plaintiff’s proofs of service for the discovery requests which show that the first set of discovery

3

requests were not served on defendant until April 23, 2012, and the second set of discovery

4

requests were not served until May 21, 2012. Pursuant to the court’s discovery and scheduling

5

order, the deadline for serving discovery requests was March 26, 2012. Although on April 12,

6

2012, plaintiff was granted an extension of time to serve his responses to defendant’s discovery

7

requests, plaintiff did not request nor did the court grant him an extension of time to conduct

8

discovery on his own behalf. Therefore, plaintiff’s motion to compel discovery will be denied

9

because plaintiff’s discovery requests were untimely.

10

Plaintiff has requested an extension of time to file a motion to seeking the denial

11

or stay of defendant Rohrer’s motion for summary judgment until discovery has been completed.

12

Defendant opposes granting plaintiff time to file a motion but does not oppose granting plaintiff

13

an extension of time to file his opposition to the pending summary judgment motion. As the

14

court has explained above, plaintiff’s discovery requests were untimely and the time for

15

conducting discovery in this action has now passed. Therefore, plaintiff’s request for an

16

extension of time to file a motion to deny or stay defendant Rohrer’s summary judgment motion

17

will be denied. The court will, however, grant plaintiff an extension of time to file his opposition

18

to defendant’s pending motion for summary judgment.

19

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

20

1. Plaintiff’s June 7, 2012 motion to compel discovery (Doc. No. 39) is denied;

21

2. Plaintiff’s September 10, 2012 request for an extension of time to file a motion

22

to deny or stay defendant’s motion for summary judgment (Doc. No. 43) is denied; and

23

/////

24

/////

25

/////

26

/////
2

1

3. Within thirty days from the service of this order, plaintiff shall file his

2

opposition to defendant Rohrer’s motion for summary judgment. Plaintiff’s failure to comply

3

with this order may result in the dismissal of this action for lack of prosecution.

4

DATED: October 12, 2012.

5
6
7

DAD:4
turn632.mtc

8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
3