Franklin v. Foulk

Filing 60

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Dale A. Drozd on 10/1/15 DENYING AS MOOT 54 Motion to Stay; GRANTING 55 Motion to Modify the Discovery and Scheduling Order. Dispositive Motions due by 12/7/2015. Except as otherwise stated in this order, the court's discovery ahd scheduling order remains in effect. (Meuleman, A)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

JOHNNY L. FRANKLIN,

12

No. 2:14-cv-0057 KJM DAD P

Plaintiff,

13

v.

14

F. FOULK, et al.,

15

ORDER

Defendants.

16
17

Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed this civil rights action seeking relief

18

under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Pending before the court is plaintiff’s motion for a stay and defendants’

19

motion to modify the discovery and scheduling order.
On June 24, 2015, the undersigned issued findings and recommendations, recommending

20
21

that defendant Dr. Syverson’s motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim be granted and that

22

defendant Syverson’s later-filed motion for summary judgment be denied as having been

23

rendered moot. On August 6, 2015, the assigned district judge adopted the findings and

24

recommendations in full and dismissed defendant Syverson from this action. While the

25

undersigned’s findings and recommendations were pending, plaintiff filed a motion to stay

26

defendant Syverson’s motion for summary judgment. In light of the assigned district judge’s

27

recent order dismissing defendant Syverson, plaintiff’s motion for a stay of defendant Syverson’s

28

/////
1

1

motion for summary judgment has now also been rendered moot. Accordingly, the court will

2

deny plaintiff’s motion for a stay.

3

Defendants have filed a motion to modify the discovery and scheduling order in this case

4

to extend the deadline to file dispositive motions to December 7, 2015. Specifically, defendants

5

Rohlfing, Swingle, and Lee filed an answer in this case, while defendants Foulk, Zamora, Kelsey,

6

and Ray filed a motion to dismiss. The undersigned’s findings and recommendations on

7

defendants’ motion to dismiss are still pending before the assigned district judge. Defendants

8

would prefer to file one motion for summary judgment on behalf of all of the defendants in this

9

case if that becomes necessary. In the interest of judicial economy and good cause appearing, the

10

court will grant defendants’ motion to modify the discovery and scheduling order in this case.

11

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

12

1. Plaintiff’s motion for a stay (Doc. No. 54) is denied as moot;

13

2. Defendants’ motion to modify the discovery and scheduling order (Doc. No. 55) is

14

granted;

15

3. The parties shall file dispositive motions on or before December 7, 2015; and

16

4. Except as otherwise stated in this order, the court’s discovery and scheduling order

17

remains in effect.

18

Dated: October 1, 2015

19
20
21

DAD:9
fran0057.41mod

22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2