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)

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