Ford v. California Health Care Facility et al.
ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Deborah Barnes on 2/8/2017 ORDERING plaintiff's 40 motion for an extension of time to respond to defendant's discovery requests is GRANTED. Plaintiff shall respond to defendant's special interrogatori es, set one, and requests for production of docuements no later than 2/28/2017. Defendant's 41 motion to compel is DENIED without prejudice. Defendant's 42 request for an extension of the discovery cut-off is GRANTED. Discovery due 4/14/2017. Plaintiff's 43 motion to object to the findings and recommendations is DENIED as untimely. Plaintiff's 43 motion for summary judgment is DENIED without prejudice. (Yin, K)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
DARREN VINCENT FORD,
No. 2:15-cv-2588 GEB DB P
CALIFORNIA HEALTH CARE
FACILITY, et al.,
Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed this civil rights action seeking relief
under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff alleges defendant Jahangiri violated plaintiff’s Eighth
Amendment rights when Jahangiri failed to take any protective measures after plaintiff threatened
to commit suicide. Plaintiff seeks an extension of time to respond to defendant’s discovery
requests. Plaintiff states that he has been unable to obtain his legal property, which he requires to
respond. Defendant opposes the extension of time or, if the extension is granted, requests an
extension of the discovery cut-off date. Defendant also moves to compel plaintiff’s responses to
special interrogatories, set one, and to the requests for production of documents. Finally, plaintiff
has filed a document in which he states he is objecting to the findings and recommendations,
presumably those filed on December 13, 2016, and moves for summary judgment.
Good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED as follows:
Plaintiff’s motion for an extension of time to respond to defendant’s discovery
requests (ECF No. 40) is granted. Plaintiff shall respond to defendant’s special
interrogatories, set one, and requests for production of documents no later than
February 28, 2017.
2. Defendant’s motion to compel (ECF No. 41) is denied without prejudice.
3. Defendant’s request for an extension of the discovery cut-off is granted. The
discovery cut-off set out in the November 21, 2016 order (ECF No. 27) is continued to
April 14, 2017. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b).
4. The December 13, 2016 findings and recommendations (ECF No. 35) advised plaintiff
that any objections were due within fourteen days. Therefore, plaintiff’s motion to
object to the findings and recommendations (ECF No. 43) is denied as untimely.
5. Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 43) is simply a one-paragraph
statement that plaintiff is entitled to relief on his claim. Plaintiff is advised that any
motion for summary judgment must comply with Local Rule 260(a) which states:
“Each motion for summary judgment or summary adjudication shall be accompanied by a
‘Statement of Undisputed Facts’ that shall enumerate discretely each of the specific
material facts relied upon in support of the motion and cite the particular portions of any
pleading, affidavit, deposition, interrogatory answer, admission, or other document relied
upon to establish that fact. The moving party shall be responsible for the filing of all
evidentiary documents cited in the moving papers. See L.R. 133(j).” Because plaintiff
has provided no Statement of Undisputed Facts and no evidence to support his claims,
plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 43) is denied without prejudice.
Dated: February 8, 2017
DLB1/prisoner-civil rights/Ford2588.disc eot2
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?