Wolinski v. Lewis et al
Filing
103
ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Allison Claire on 05/31/2024 GRANTING-IN-PART and DENYING-IN-PART the 102 Motion for Extension of Time. The motion is GRANTED to the extent that plaintiff Wolinksi's deadline to serve responses to Defendant 39;s written discovery request is EXTENDED to 6/30/2024 and the deadline to file a motion to compel is EXTENDED to 7/30/2024. The motion is DENIED to the extent that defendants request for an extension of time to respond to plaintiff's motion for an ADA computer. This denial is without prejudice. If the court deems a response necessary, it will set a separate briefing schedule on plaintiff's motions. The dispositive motions deadline remains 8/29/2024. (Spichka, K.)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
KRZYSZTOF F. WOLINSKI,
12
No. 2:17-cv-00583 MCE AC
Plaintiff,
13
v.
14
J. LEWIS, et al.,
15
ORDER
Defendants.
16
17
Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights
18
action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Following a modification of the December 12, 2023
19
Discovery and Scheduling Order, the deadline for filing a motion to compel was extended to May
20
30, 2024. Instead of filing a motion to compel, defendants filed a second motion for an extension
21
of time to respond to plaintiff’s pending motions for access to an ADA computer. ECF No. 102.
22
The motion indicates that the parties have agreed to extend plaintiff’s deadline to respond to
23
defendants’ discovery requests that were served on February 15, 2024 despite the lack of any
24
response from plaintiff. ECF No. 102. Moreover, the parties additionally have agreed to extend
25
the motion to compel deadline to July 30, 2024. The court will grant these stipulated extensions
26
of time.
27
28
This case was originally removed from state court more than 7 years ago and has not even
finished discovery. This case is proceeding on plaintiff’s second amended complaint alleging
1
1
First Amendment retaliation and Eighth Amendment excessive force/failure to protect claims
2
against defendants. Based on this history, the court does not find good cause for defendants’
3
extension of time to respond to plaintiff’s motions concerning his access to an ADA computer
4
which are not focused on the merits of the pending claims.
5
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
6
1. Defendants’ motion for an extension of time (ECF No. 102) is granted in part and
7
8
denied in part.
2. The motion is granted to the extent that plaintiff Wolinski’s deadline to serve responses
9
to Defendants’ written discovery request is extended to June 30, 2024 and the deadline to a file a
10
motion to compel is extended to July 30, 2024. No further extensions of these deadlines shall
11
be granted.
12
3. The motion is denied to the extent that defendants request an extension of time to
13
respond to plaintiff’s motions for an ADA computer. This denial is without prejudice. If the
14
court deems a response necessary, it will set a separate briefing schedule on plaintiff’s motions.
15
16
4. The dispositive motions deadline remains August 29, 2024.
DATED: May 31, 2024
17
18
19
20
21
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?