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
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?