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)

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