Ford v. California Health Care Facility et al.

Filing 44

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)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 DARREN VINCENT FORD, 12 Plaintiff, 13 14 15 No. 2:15-cv-2588 GEB DB P v. ORDER CALIFORNIA HEALTH CARE FACILITY, et al., Defendants. 16 Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed this civil rights action seeking relief 17 18 under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff alleges defendant Jahangiri violated plaintiff’s Eighth 19 Amendment rights when Jahangiri failed to take any protective measures after plaintiff threatened 20 to commit suicide. Plaintiff seeks an extension of time to respond to defendant’s discovery 21 requests. Plaintiff states that he has been unable to obtain his legal property, which he requires to 22 respond. Defendant opposes the extension of time or, if the extension is granted, requests an 23 extension of the discovery cut-off date. Defendant also moves to compel plaintiff’s responses to 24 special interrogatories, set one, and to the requests for production of documents. Finally, plaintiff 25 has filed a document in which he states he is objecting to the findings and recommendations, 26 presumably those filed on December 13, 2016, and moves for summary judgment. Good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED as follows: 27 28 /// 1 1 1. Plaintiff’s motion for an extension of time to respond to defendant’s discovery 2 requests (ECF No. 40) is granted. Plaintiff shall respond to defendant’s special 3 interrogatories, set one, and requests for production of documents no later than 4 February 28, 2017. 5 2. Defendant’s motion to compel (ECF No. 41) is denied without prejudice. 6 3. Defendant’s request for an extension of the discovery cut-off is granted. The 7 discovery cut-off set out in the November 21, 2016 order (ECF No. 27) is continued to 8 April 14, 2017. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b). 9 4. The December 13, 2016 findings and recommendations (ECF No. 35) advised plaintiff 10 that any objections were due within fourteen days. Therefore, plaintiff’s motion to 11 object to the findings and recommendations (ECF No. 43) is denied as untimely. 12 5. Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 43) is simply a one-paragraph 13 statement that plaintiff is entitled to relief on his claim. Plaintiff is advised that any 14 motion for summary judgment must comply with Local Rule 260(a) which states: 15 “Each motion for summary judgment or summary adjudication shall be accompanied by a 16 ‘Statement of Undisputed Facts’ that shall enumerate discretely each of the specific 17 material facts relied upon in support of the motion and cite the particular portions of any 18 pleading, affidavit, deposition, interrogatory answer, admission, or other document relied 19 upon to establish that fact. The moving party shall be responsible for the filing of all 20 evidentiary documents cited in the moving papers. See L.R. 133(j).” Because plaintiff 21 has provided no Statement of Undisputed Facts and no evidence to support his claims, 22 plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 43) is denied without prejudice. 23 Dated: February 8, 2017 24 25 26 DLB:9 DLB1/prisoner-civil rights/Ford2588.disc eot2 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?