Kilgore v. Mandeville et al
Filing
68
ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman on 03/01/10 ordering plaintiff's motion for stay 66 construed as a motion to amend the scheduling order 44 is granted. Plaintiff's near-identical motions for sanctions relative to defe ndants' failure to timely oppose plaintiff's discovery motion 56 and 67 are denied without prejudice. The dates currently scheduled for trial, filing pretrial statements and convening a pretrial conference are vacated pending further o rder of this court. The discovery deadline of 08/31/09 shall remain in place pending this court's consideration of plaintiff's discovery motion and whether the deadline should be extended to allow for further appropriate discovery. The 12/04/09 deadline for filing dispositive motions shall also remain in place pending further order of this court.(Plummer, M)
<![CDATA[
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 This action is referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B), Local General Order No. 262, and E.D. Cal. L.R. ("Local Rule") 302. 1
1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA IVAN KILGORE, Plaintiff, vs. RICHARD MANDEVILLE, et al., Defendants. / Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding without counsel and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action was reassigned to the undersigned on February 9, 2010. (Dkt. No. 62.)1 Plaintiff is proceeding on an amended complaint against defendants Bal, Borges, Dunne, Forshay, Hampton, Kelly, Wedell, and Winton, based on claims of deliberate indifference to medical needs. Several matters are currently pending before the court, including plaintiff's motion for discovery (Dkt. No. 49 (731 pages)), filed six days prior to the August 31, 2009 discovery deadline (see Dkt. No. 44 (Scheduling Order)). Defendants have filed a motion for ORDER No. 2:07-cv-2485 GEB KJN P
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26
summary judgment (Dkt. No. 63). Quickly upcoming are the deadlines for filing pretrial statements and holding a pretrial conference (see Dkt. No. 44 (pretrial statements due March 19, 2010; pretrial conference scheduled March 26, 2010; trial scheduled June 22, 2010)). Plaintiff now seeks, inter alia, a stay of these proceedings to obtain the court's resolution of plaintiff's pending discovery motion and to permit adequate time to complete discovery before responding to defendants' motion for summary judgment and proceeding to trial. (See Dkt. No. 66.) Plaintiff has demonstrated good cause to amend the scheduling order. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 1. Plaintiff's motion for stay (Dkt. No. 66), construed as a motion to amend the scheduling order (Dkt. No. 44), is granted. 2. Plaintiff's near-identical motions for sanctions relative to defendants' failure timely to oppose plaintiff's discovery motion (Dkt. Nos. 56 and 67)2 are denied without prejudice. 3. The dates currently scheduled for trial, filing pretrial statements, and convening a pretrial conference (see Dkt. No. 44) are vacated pending further order of this court. Should this matter proceed to trial, the court will, by subsequent order, set a trial date and deadline for filing pretrial statements. 4. The discovery deadline of August 31, 2009 shall remain in place pending this court's consideration of plaintiff's discovery motion and whether the deadline should be extended to allow for further appropriate discovery. //// //// //// //// Defendants filed a late opposition to plaintiff's discovery motion (Dkt. No. 57) which the court, in its discretion, will consider. 2
2
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26
5. The December 4, 2009 deadline for filing dispositive motions (extended several times at defendants' requests)3 shall also remain in place pending further order of this court. SO ORDERED. DATED: March 1, 2010
_____________________________________ KENDALL J. NEWMAN UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
The court notes that defendants nonetheless filed their motion for summary judgment one day after the last extended deadline. (See Dkt. Nos. 61, 63.) 3
3
]]>
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?
