Bridges v. Hubbard et al

Filing 71

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Dale A. Drozd on 8/8/11 ORDERING that plaintiffs 66 motion for an extension of time to conduct discovery is GRANTED; Plaintiffs 67 and 68 motions to re-issue a scheduling order in light of defendant Marquezs app earance in this action are GRANTED. The courts 56 discovery and scheduling order is VACATED. The court will issue a separate discovery and scheduling order with new discovery and pretrial motion cut-off dates; and Plaintiffs 69 motion for a court order allowing him to communicate with potential thirty-party inmate witnesses is DENIED without prejudice. (Dillon, M)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

WILLIE BRIDGES,

11
12
13

Plaintiff,

No. CIV S-09-0940 GEB DAD P

vs.
SUZAN L. HUBBARD, et al.,

14

Defendants.

15

ORDER
/

16

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis. Plaintiff

17

seeks relief pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Pending before the court are several of plaintiff’s

18

motions.

19

First, plaintiff has filed a motion for an extension of time to conduct discovery.

20

Defendants have not opposed or otherwise responded to plaintiff’s motion. Good cause

21

appearing, for the reasons discussed below, the court will grant plaintiff as well as all of the

22

parties in this action additional time to conduct discovery.

23

Second, plaintiff has filed two virtually identical motions for the court to “re-

24

issue” the scheduling order in this case. At the time the court issued the scheduling order, seven

25

of the eight defendants had answered plaintiff’s amended complaint. Defendant Marquez had

26

not made an appearance yet. On June 1, 2011, defendant Marquez filed an answer. Good cause
1

1

appearing, the court will grant plaintiff’s motions and issue a new discovery and scheduling order

2

in light of defendant Marquez’s appearance in this case.

3

Finally, plaintiff has filed a motion for a court order requiring the California

4

Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation to allow him to communicate with potential third-

5

party inmate witnesses. California Code of Regulations title 15, § 3139 provides in part:

6

Inmates shall obtain written authorization from the
Warden/Regional Parole Administrator or their designee/assigned
probation officer, person in charge of the County Jail and/or other
State Correctional Systems, at a level not less than Correctional
Captain/Facility Captain or Parole Agent III, to correspond with
any of the following:

7
8
9
10

(1) Inmates under the jurisdiction of any county, state or federal,
juvenile or adult correctional agency.

11

(2) Persons committed to any county, state or federal program as a
civil addict.

12
(3) Persons on parole or civil addict outpatient status under the
jurisdiction of any county, state or federal, juvenile or adult
correctional agency.

13
14
15

Plaintiff has not indicated whether he has availed himself, or attempted to avail himself, of the

16

process provided by the California Code of Regulations to obtain approval to correspond with his

17

potential third-party inmate witnesses. Accordingly, the court will deny plaintiff’s motion

18

without prejudice. If plaintiff attempts to engage in communications with his potential third-

19

party witnesses by following the proper procedures outlined above and is denied access or is

20

otherwise not able to effectively communicate with his potential witnesses, and those

21

communications are necessary to prosecute this cause of action, plaintiff may renew his motion.

22

In any renewed motion, however, plaintiff will need to describe his attempts to avail himself of

23

the process provided above, explain how the process failed him, and elaborate on why the

24

communication with any potential third-party witness is relevant to this cause of action. Plaintiff

25

is cautioned that this court does not have jurisdiction in this action over anyone other than

26

/////
2

1

plaintiff and defendants. See Zenith Radio Corp. v. Hazeltine Research, Inc., 395 U.S. 100, 112

2

(1969).

3

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

4

1. Plaintiff’s motion for an extension of time to conduct discovery (Doc. No. 66)

5

is granted;

6
7

2. Plaintiff’s motions to “re-issue” a scheduling order in light of defendant
Marquez’s appearance in this action (Doc. Nos. 67 & 68) are granted.

8
9
10

3. The court’s March 17, 2011 discovery and scheduling order is vacated. The
court will issue a separate discovery and scheduling order with new discovery and pretrial motion
cut-off dates; and

11

5. Plaintiff’s motion for a court order allowing him to communicate with

12

potential thirty-party inmate witnesses (Doc. No. 69) is denied without prejudice.

13

DATED: August 8, 2011.

14
15
16

DAD:9
brid0940.mots

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
3