Bontemps v. Salinas, et al

Filing 60

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Allison Claire on 3/18/2015. Defendants' 52 Motion for Protective Order staying Discovery is GRANTED. Defendants' 59 Motion to Vacate dates in 46 Discovery and Scheduling Order is GRANTED. Plaintiff� 39;s 58 Request for Extension of Time to file an Amended Opposition is GRANTED. Plaintiff shall have 30 from date of this Order in which to file an Amended Opposition. Defendants shall have 7 days from date plaintiff's Amended Opposition is filed to file a Reply to plaintiff's Amended Opposition. (Marciel, M)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 GREGORY C. BONTEMPS, 12 No. 2:12-cv-2185 TLN AC P Plaintiff, 13 v. 14 SALINAS, et al., 15 ORDER Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff is a California inmate proceeding pro se with a civil rights action pursuant to 42 18 U.S.C. § 1983. On November 5, 2014 defendants filed a motion for summary judgment on 19 exhaustion grounds, ECF No. 51, and a motion for a protective order staying discovery, ECF No. 20 52. On January 14, 2015, the court issued an order to show cause why plaintiff’s case should not 21 be dismissed for lack of prosecution. ECF No. 56. On January 26, 2006 plaintiff filed an 22 opposition to defendants’ motion for summary judgment. ECF No. 57. Accordingly, the order to 23 show cause is discharged. 24 On February 23, 2015, plaintiff filed a motion for a thirty-day extension of time to file an 25 amended opposition to defendants’ summary judgment motion. The court notes that plaintiff 26 identified an error in the court’s January 14, 2015 order, ECF No. 56, in which the date of the 27 order is listed as “January 13, 2014” instead of “January 13, 2015.” Good cause appearing, 28 plaintiff’s request for an extension of time to file an amended opposition is granted. Pursuant to 1 1 Local Rule 230(l), defendants shall have seven (7) days after plaintiff’s opposition has been filed 2 in CM/ECF to serve and file a reply to the amended opposition. 3 In addition to their motion for a protective order staying discovery, ECF No. 52, 4 defendants have filed a motion to modify or vacate the Discovery and Scheduling Order, ECF No. 5 46, to extend the deadline for discovery and the filing of pre-trial motions. ECF No. 59. Good 6 cause appearing, defendants’ motions are granted. Discovery is stayed pending resolution of 7 defendants’ summary judgment motion, ECF No. 51, and the deadlines for discovery and the 8 filing of pre-trial motions set forth in the Discovery and Scheduling Order, ECF No. 46, are 9 vacated. An amended scheduling order will issue if necessary after defendants’ summary 10 judgment motion on exhaustion grounds is resolved. 11 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 12 1. Defendants’ motion for a protective order staying discovery, ECF No. 52, is 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 GRANTED; 2. Defendants’ motion to vacate the dates in the Discovery and Scheduling Order, ECF No. 59, is GRANTED; 3. Plaintiff’s request for an extension of time to file an amended opposition, ECF No. 58, is GRANTED; 4. Plaintiff shall have thirty days from the date of this order in which to file an amended opposition; and 5. Defendants shall have seven days from the date plaintiff’s amended opposition is filed to file a reply to plaintiff’s amended opposition. DATED: March 18, 2015 23 24 25 26 27 28 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?