Henderson v. Purcell et al

Filing 41

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Dale A. Drozd on 07/06/11 ordering that plaintiff's "Reply to Court order" construed as a motion to compel 39 is denied. (Plummer, M)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 ANTOINE HENDERSON, 11 12 13 14 15 16 Plaintiff, No. CIV S-09-2779 DAD P vs. K. PURCELL, et al., Defendants. ORDER / Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with this civil rights action. Plaintiff 17 has filed a document styled “Reply to Court Order,” which this court has construed as motion to 18 compel. Therein, he seeks a court order requiring the defendants to provide him with certain 19 documents, including the Solano County Jail Manual or Training Book. 20 According to the court’s August 3, 2010 discovery and scheduling order, the 21 parties were allowed to conduct discovery up until November 19, 2010; plaintiff needed to file 22 any motion to compel by that date. In the absence of good cause, the court will not modify the 23 scheduling order in this case. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(f); Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 24 975 F.2d 604, 607-08 (9th Cir. 1992). Here, plaintiff has not shown good cause to extend the 25 discovery deadline or modify the scheduling order. Id. at 609 (good cause exists when the 26 moving party demonstrates that he could not meet a deadline despite exercising due diligence). 1 1 The court also notes that on May 6, 2011, it granted plaintiff thirty days to file an 2 opposition to defendants’ motion for summary judgment. Plaintiff still has not filed an 3 opposition, so in due course the court will issue findings and recommendations on the motion 4 without his opposition. 5 In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s “Reply 6 to Court Order” construed as a motion to compel (Doc. No. 39) is denied. 7 DATED: July 6, 2011. 8 9 10 DAD:9 hend2779.mtcd 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 2

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?