(PC) Landreth v. Lehil et al

Filing 30

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Dennis M. Cota on 07/13/2021 GRANTING 29 Motion to Suspend the Scheduling Order and SUSPENDING 21 Court's Scheduling Order and all other orders modifying the litigation schedule. Defendants may file an amended responsive pleading within 21 days of service of the complaint upon Ottenbacher. (Rodriguez, E)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

BRANDON MICHAEL LANDRETH,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14

No. 2:20-CV-0472-DMC-P

v.

ORDER

BHUPINDER LEHIL, et al.,

15

Defendants.

16
17

Plaintiff, a prisoner proceeding pro se, brings this civil rights action under 42 U.S.C.

18

§ 1983. Before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion to revise the Court’s scheduling order. ECF No. 29.

19

Plaintiff moves to revise the scheduling order because one of the defendants in this case, Jonovan

20

Ottenbacher, has not been served. See id. The Court construes the motion as a motion to suspend

21

the scheduling order pending service on Defendant Ottenbacher.

22

There are five named defendants in this case: Lehil, Carrick, Posson, Nguyen, and

23

Ottenbacher. Lehil, Carrick, and Posson waived service. ECF Nos. 17, 19. Two defendants, Nguyen

24

and Ottenbacher did not. ECF Nos. 16, 17. It appears to the Court, after conferring with the Clerk

25

of the Court and the United States Marshal Service, that neither Nguyen nor Ottenbacher were

26

properly served. Nguyen, however, filed an answer alongside Lehil, Carrick, and Posson. ECF No.

27

20. Ottenbacher has yet to be served, and he has not filed any response to the complaint.

28

///
1

1

It further appears to the Court that the United States Marshal Service will reattempt

2

service on Defendant Ottenbacher. After Lehil, Carrick, Posson, and Nguyen filed an answer, the

3

Court issued a scheduling order with respect to those defendants on January 13, 2021. ECF No. 21.

4

Because Defendant Ottenbacher has not been served, the Court will suspend its discovery and

5

scheduling order so that this case proceeds on a uniform timeline for all parties.

6

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:

7

1.

8
9

Plaintiff’s motion to revise the scheduling order, construed as a motion to

suspend the scheduling order, is GRANTED.
2.

The Court’s scheduling order (ECF No. 21) and all other orders modifying

10

the litigation schedule are SUSPENDED pending service of the complaint upon Defendant

11

Ottenbacher. The Court will reset the discovery and litigation schedule once Ottenbacher files a

12

response in this case.

13

3.

Should Ottenbacher appear in this case represented by the same counsel as

14

Defendants Lehil, Carrick, Posson, and Nguyen, Defendants may file an amended responsive

15

pleading within twenty-one (21) days of service of the complaint upon Ottenbacher.

16
17

Dated: July 13, 2021
____________________________________
DENNIS M. COTA
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2