Caldwell v. Schaller et al

Filing 32

ORDER denying 29 Motion for Extension of Time; and RENOTING the 23 MOTION for Summary Judgment to: 4/10/2015. Plaintiff's response to defendants 23 MOTION for Summary Judgment is due on or before 3/27/15. Plaintiff has not shown good cause to further delay consideration of defendants' dispositive motion. Signed by Magistrate Judge J Richard Creatura.(CMG; cc to Plaintiff)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT TACOMA

8
9
10

DEREK CALDWELL,

11

Plaintiff,

13
14

ORDER

v.

12

CASE NO. C14-5827 RBL-JRC

GREGORY SCHALLER, BOB WEBER,
STAFFORD CREEK MEDICAL
FACILITY, NORMAN GOODENOUGH,
PAT GLEBE.

15
Defendants.
16
17

The District Court has referred this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 civil rights action to United States

18 Magistrate Judge J. Richard Creatura pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A) and (B), and local
19 Magistrate Judge Rules MJR1, MJR3 and MJR4.
20

Currently before the Court is plaintiff’s motion asking the Court to modify the scheduling

21 order in this action (Dkt. 29). Plaintiff asks for a four month extension of both the discovery and
22 the dispositive motion deadlines (id.). Defendants oppose the motion (Dkt. 31). The Court
23 denies plaintiff’s motion based on the procedural history of this case and plaintiff’s failure to
24 inform the Court what additional discovery he believes he needs.

ORDER - 1

1

Plaintiff complains about the medical treatment he has received for an alleged injury to

2 his right hip and lower back (Dkt. 20)(amended complaint). Plaintiff filed his action in October
3 of 2014 (Dkt. 1). The Court granted him leave to proceed in forma pauperis and ordered service
4 of the complaint (Dkt. 5 and 7).
5

Defendants answered the complaint on November 6, 2014 (Dkt. 10). The Court entered a

6 scheduling order on November 7, 2014 (Dkt. 11). Plaintiff asked the Court for leave to amend
7 his complaint (Dkt. 12). The Court granted plaintiff’s motion (Dkt. 19). The Court also
8 addressed plaintiff’s request for discovery (id.). Thus, the record shows that plaintiff conducted
9 discovery in this action as early as November 2014 (Dkt. 19).
10

On December 30, 2014, defendants filed a motion for summary judgment (Dkt. 23).

11 Defendants’ motion was originally noted for January 23, 2015 (Dkt. 23). Plaintiff asked the
12 Court for additional time to file a response (Dkt. 27). The Court granted plaintiff’s motion and
13 gave him sixty additional days to respond to defendants’ motion for summary judgment (Dkt.
14 30).
15

Plaintiff now asks the Court for a four month extension of discovery and dispositive

16 motion deadlines (Dkt. 29). Plaintiff states that he intends to file a second amended complaint
17 (Dkt. 29).
18

Courts “possess broad authority to regulate the conduct of discovery, and their decisions

19 to limit discovery are reviewed for an abuse of discretion.” Century 21 Real Estate Corp. v.
20 Sandlin, 846 F.2d 1175, 1181 (citing Barona Group of Capitan Grande Band of Mission Indians
21 v. American Mgmt. & Amusement, 824 F.2d 710, 716 (9th Cir.1987)). Plaintiff does not inform
22 the Court what additional discovery he seeks or why amendment of the complaint is needed.
23 Defendants’ motion for summary has been pending since December 30, 2014 (Dkt. 23). The
24

ORDER - 2

1 motion is noted for consideration on April 10, 2015. Plaintiff’s response to defendants’ motion
2 for summary is due on or before March 27, 2015. Plaintiff has not shown good cause to further
3 delay consideration of defendants’ dispositive motion. The Court denies plaintiff’s motion.
4

Dated this 2nd day of March, 2015.

A

5
6

J. Richard Creatura
United States Magistrate Judge

7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24

ORDER - 3