(PC) Harrell v. Palmer, et al, No. 2:2004cv01968 - Document 78 (E.D. Cal. 2010)
Court Description: ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Dale A. Drozd on 8/13/10 ORDERING that 72 Motion to modify the scheduling order is denied as having been rendered moot; and if the assigned district judge in this case declines to adopt the undersigneds August 13, 2010 findings and recommendations, the court will vacate the February 26, 2010 scheduling order and modify the discovery and dispositive motion deadlines, to the extent the court deems necessary. (Dillon, M)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
(PC) Harrell v. Palmer, et al Doc. 78 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 HULEN T. HARRELL, 11 Plaintiff, 12 13 14 15 16 No. CIV S-04-1968 JAM DAD P vs. P.D. PALMER, et al., Defendants. ORDER / Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with an action 17 filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On May 17, 2010, defendant filed a motion requesting the 18 suspension of the scheduling order in this case. In particular, defendant requested that the court 19 suspend the discovery and dispositive motion deadlines in this case, while the court considered 20 defendant’s March 16, 2010 renewed motion for terminating and monetary sanctions. 21 On August 13, 2010, the undersigned issued findings and recommendations in this 22 action recommending that defendant’s March 16, 2010 renewed request for terminating sanctions 23 be granted. Therein, the undersigned addressed plaintiff’s repeated and unjustified refusal to 24 participate in his deposition and found that his conduct warrants the dismissal of this action. 25 Accordingly, in light of those findings and recommendations, defendant’s request for the 26 suspension of the court’s scheduling order has been rendered moot. 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 Therefore, for the reasons set forth above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 2 1. Defendant’s May 17, 2010 motion to modify the scheduling order in this case 3 (Doc. No. 72) is denied as having been rendered moot; and 4 2. If the assigned district judge in this case declines to adopt the undersigned’s 5 August 13, 2010 findings and recommendations, the court will vacate the February 26, 2010 6 scheduling order and modify the discovery and dispositive motion deadlines, to the extent the 7 court deems necessary. 8 DATED: August 13, 2010. 9 10 11 12 DAD:sj harr1968.46.susp 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 2
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
