(PC) Landreth v. Lehil et al
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)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
BRANDON MICHAEL LANDRETH,
BHUPINDER LEHIL, et al.,
Plaintiff, a prisoner proceeding pro se, brings this civil rights action under 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983. Before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion to revise the Court’s scheduling order. ECF No. 29.
Plaintiff moves to revise the scheduling order because one of the defendants in this case, Jonovan
Ottenbacher, has not been served. See id. The Court construes the motion as a motion to suspend
the scheduling order pending service on Defendant Ottenbacher.
There are five named defendants in this case: Lehil, Carrick, Posson, Nguyen, and
Ottenbacher. Lehil, Carrick, and Posson waived service. ECF Nos. 17, 19. Two defendants, Nguyen
and Ottenbacher did not. ECF Nos. 16, 17. It appears to the Court, after conferring with the Clerk
of the Court and the United States Marshal Service, that neither Nguyen nor Ottenbacher were
properly served. Nguyen, however, filed an answer alongside Lehil, Carrick, and Posson. ECF No.
20. Ottenbacher has yet to be served, and he has not filed any response to the complaint.
It further appears to the Court that the United States Marshal Service will reattempt
service on Defendant Ottenbacher. After Lehil, Carrick, Posson, and Nguyen filed an answer, the
Court issued a scheduling order with respect to those defendants on January 13, 2021. ECF No. 21.
Because Defendant Ottenbacher has not been served, the Court will suspend its discovery and
scheduling order so that this case proceeds on a uniform timeline for all parties.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:
Plaintiff’s motion to revise the scheduling order, construed as a motion to
suspend the scheduling order, is GRANTED.
The Court’s scheduling order (ECF No. 21) and all other orders modifying
the litigation schedule are SUSPENDED pending service of the complaint upon Defendant
Ottenbacher. The Court will reset the discovery and litigation schedule once Ottenbacher files a
response in this case.
Should Ottenbacher appear in this case represented by the same counsel as
Defendants Lehil, Carrick, Posson, and Nguyen, Defendants may file an amended responsive
pleading within twenty-one (21) days of service of the complaint upon Ottenbacher.
Dated: July 13, 2021
DENNIS M. COTA
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
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?