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)

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