Cohea v. Adams et al
Filing
85
ORDER Addressing Plaintiff's 84 Request for Clarification signed by Magistrate Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe on 11/23/2011. (Flores, E)
<![CDATA[
1
2
3
4
5
6
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
7
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
8
9
DANNY JAMES COHEA,
10
11
CASE NO. 1:08-cv-01186-LJO-BAM PC
Plaintiff,
ORDER ADDRESSING PLAINTIFF’S
REQUEST FOR CLARIFICATION
v.
(ECF No. 84)
12
D. ADAMS, et al.,
13
Defendants.
14
/
15
16
Plaintiff Danny James Cohea, a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed
17
this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on August 13, 2008. This action is proceeding
18
on the complaint, filed August 13, 2008, against Defendants Adams, Jones, Vela-Lopez and Kush.1
19
Following Defendants Adams, Jones, and Vela-Lopez filing an answer to the complaint, a discovery
20
and scheduling order issued on December 9, 2009 opening discovery and setting deadlines for the
21
parties. On January 31, 2011, an amended discovery and scheduling order issued setting the
22
discovery cut-off date for April 15, 2011.
23
Following Defendant Kush filing an answer to the complaint, on June 6, 2011, a discovery
24
and scheduling order issued as to Plaintiff’s claims against Defendant Kush. The dates for the
25
discovery and scheduling order issued for Defendants Adams, Jones, Kush, and Vela-Lopez
26
remained unchanged. The discovery cut-off date for Defendant Kush is December 12, 2011 and
27
1
28
On August 3, 2011, Defendant Hicinbothem was dismissed for Plaintiff’s failure to effect service of
process. (ECF No. 74.)
1
1
2
dispositive motions are due January 17, 2012.
Accordingly, all discovery as to Defendants Adams, Jones, and Vela-Lopez had to be
3
completed by April 15, 2011, and dispositive motions were to be filed by September 6, 2011.
4
Defendants Adams, Jones, and Vela-Lopez filed their motion for summary judgment on August 30,
5
2011 and it is currently pending before the Court. Plaintiff is incorrect in stating that the June 6,
6
2011, discovery and scheduling order has been superceded by subsequent orders of the Court.
7
Additionally, Defendant Kush is not in contempt of the order of the Court by joining in the summary
8
judgment motion prior to the deadline set for him in the scheduling order. The parties have been
9
conducting discovery in this action since December 9, 2009, and the claims against Defendant Kush
10
are similar to those against the remaining defendants. If Plaintiff felt that additional discovery was
11
needed prior to opposing the motion for summary judgment he merely needed to file a motion for
12
an extension of time to respond setting forth good cause for the continuance prior to the date his
13
response was due.
14
15
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:
10c20k
November 23, 2011
/s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
16
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?
