(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)

Download PDF
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

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?