Brown v. Sagireddy et al

Filing 95

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Allison Claire on 7/18/2017 ORDERING Plaintiff's 94 Motion for Reconsideration be construed as a renewed Motion for Extension of Time and DENYING 94 Renewed Motion for Extension of Time without prejudice. (Henshaw, R)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 DEXTER BROWN, 12 13 14 No. 2:14-cv-0338 JAM AC P Plaintiff, v. ORDER PURUSHOTTAMA SAGIREDDY, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff has filed a motion for reconsideration of the order denying his request for an 18 extension of time to complete discovery. ECF No. 94. Since the previous motion was dismissed 19 without prejudice (ECF No. 90), the court will construe the motion as a renewed motion for an 20 extension of time. 21 Discovery is set to close on August 18, 2017, and discovery requests were to be served no 22 later than June 19, 2017. ECF No. 87-1 at 5. Plaintiff’s previous request to modify the 23 scheduling order requested that the court “extend the timeline for completion of discovery to no 24 sooner than October 2017.” ECF No. 88 at 2. In denying plaintiff’s previous request for 25 extension, the court advised plaintiff of the information he would need to provide in any future 26 motions for extension. Specifically, he was directed to “identify what specific tasks he needs 27 additional time to complete, request a specific amount of time for the extension, and explain both 28 what he has been doing during the time he already had and why he needs the additional time 1 1 requested.” ECF No. 90. In his current motion, plaintiff identifies the discovery he seeks to 2 pursue and states that he requires additional time because he expects to be impeded in his efforts, 3 he “cannot reasonably be expected to move with the speed of trained legal professionals,” and he 4 is being subject to various civil rights violations that must be documented. ECF No. 94 at 4-5. 5 Plaintiff does not identify a specific amount of time for the extension or explain what he has been 6 doing since the discovery and scheduling order was issued on April 27, 2017. However, the court 7 will assume that he is still seeking an extension until sometime in October and that he has been 8 spending his time documenting the other alleged civil rights violations. 9 Discovery has been open for nearly three months, and there is no indication in plaintiff’s 10 current motion that he has taken any steps during that time toward obtaining the discovery he 11 seeks. ECF No. 94. Instead, he states that he anticipates obstruction of his efforts to obtain 12 discovery, which implies that he has yet to begin putting forth any efforts to obtain discovery, and 13 all evidence indicates that he has spent his time documenting the various alleged civil rights 14 violations instead of pursuing this case. ECF Nos. 88, 94. In denying the previous motion, 15 plaintiff was clearly advised that the court will not extend litigation deadlines simply because he 16 chooses to prioritize other matters (ECF No. 90) and he has failed to demonstrate that he has 17 made any efforts at pursuing discovery since being so advised. Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate 18 good cause for modifying the scheduling order and extending discovery and his motion will 19 therefore be denied. 20 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration is 21 construed as a renewed motion for extension of time (ECF No. 94) and is denied without 22 prejudice. 23 DATED: July 18, 2017 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?