Leonard v. Denny, et al

Filing 103

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Allison Claire on 10/07/16 ordering plaintiffs motion to extend the time to file motions to compel 98 is granted and plaintiff shall have thirty days from service of this complaint to file and serve motions to compe l responses to his interrogatories and requests for admission. The December 19, 2016 dispositive motion deadline is hereby vacated and will be reset upon resolution of any discovery issues. Plaintiffs request for an extension of time to amend the co mplaint 98 is granted to the extent the court will delay in recommending dismissal of defendant Doe. The request is otherwise denied as moot. Plaintiffs request that the court order CDCR to provide him with copies 95 is denied without prejudice to a motion containing the information requested by the court. (Plummer, M) Modified on 10/7/2016 (Plummer, M).

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

DAVID G. LEONARD,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14

No. 2:12-cv-0915 TLN AC P

v.

ORDER

JIM DENNY, et al.,

15

Defendants.

16
Plaintiff is a former county and current state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma

17
18

pauperis in this action. Currently before the court are plaintiff’s motion for an extension of time

19

to file motions to compel and to identify and name defendant Doe (ECF No. 98) and motion for

20

an order directing copies (ECF No. 95).

21

I.

Motion to Extend Time

22

Plaintiff has filed a motion for extension of time in which to file motions to compel responses

23

to interrogatories and requests for admission. ECF No. 98 at 9, ¶ 29. Plaintiff also moves for an

24

extension of time in order to identify and name defendant Doe. Id. at 11.
Good cause appearing, plaintiff’s request for an additional thirty days to file motions to

25
26

compel responses to interrogatories and admissions will be granted. In light of plaintiff’s pending

27

////

28

////
1

1

motion to compel responses to his requests for production, which was timely filed (ECF No. 99),1

2

and his expressed intent to file additional motions to compel, the dispositive motion deadline will

3

be vacated and re-set upon resolution of the discovery issues in this case.

4

With respect to the request for an extension of time to amend the complaint, it is unclear

5

from plaintiff’s motion if he has identified defendant Doe or if believes he will be able to identify

6

defendant Doe through the discovery he seeks to compel from defendants. Plaintiff was informed

7

in the court’s screening order that failure to identify the Doe defendant and serve him prior to the

8

close of discovery would result in a recommendation that the claims against defendant Doe be

9

dismissed. ECF No. 76 at 7.

10

In light of the pending discovery disputes, the court will defer a recommendation

11

regarding dismissal of the Doe defendant. However, if plaintiff has learned the identity of

12

defendant Doe, he should not delay in filing a motion to substitute. A motion to substitute need

13

only identify the individual who plaintiff wants to substitute for defendant Doe, and should not

14

contain any new claims.

15

Plaintiff’s motion also indicates that he may be seeking an extension of time to move to

16

add additional defendants and claims. ECF No. 98 at 11. Since the court has not set a deadline

17

for amending the complaint, an extension is not necessary. However, at this stage, leave of the

18

court is required to amend a pleading absent written consent by defendants. Fed. R. Civ. P.

19

15(2)(a). Plaintiff is advised that Local Rule 137(c) requires any motion to amend be

20

accompanied by a copy of the proposed amended complaint. Failure to provide a copy of the

21

proposed amended complaint will result in denial of the motion to amend. Plaintiff is also

22

reminded that Local Rule 220 requires that an amended complaint be complete in itself without

23

reference to any prior complaints.

24

II.

25
26
27
28

Order Directing the CDCR to Provide Copies
Also before the court is plaintiff’s motion for an order directing the California Department

of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) to provide copies. ECF No. 95. Plaintiff was
1

Since plaintiff is a prisoner proceeding pro se, he is afforded the benefit of the prison mailbox
rule. See Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266, 276 (1988).
2

1

previously informed that in order for the court to determine how to proceed, he must provide

2

further information regarding the requests and documents he was trying to get copied. ECF No.

3

97 at 3. The time for plaintiff to provide the requested supplemental information has passed and

4

he has not provided the court with any further information. Therefore, plaintiff’s request for the

5

court to direct CDCR to provide copies to plaintiff is denied without prejudice to the filing of

6

another motion that contains the requested information.

7

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

8

1. Plaintiff’s motion to extend the time to file motions to compel (ECF No. 98) is granted

9
10
11
12
13

and plaintiff shall have thirty days from service of this complaint to file and serve motions to
compel responses to his interrogatories and requests for admission.
2. The December 19, 2016 dispositive motion deadline is hereby vacated and will be reset upon resolution of any discovery issues.
3. Plaintiff’s request for an extension of time to amend the complaint (ECF No. 98) is

14

granted to the extent the court will delay in recommending dismissal of defendant Doe. The

15

request is otherwise denied as moot.

16

4. Plaintiff’s request that the court order CDCR to provide him with copies (ECF No. 95)

17

is denied without prejudice to a motion containing the information requested by the court.

18

DATED: October 7, 2016

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3