Sotelo v. Birring, et al., No. 1:2008cv01342 - Document 166 (E.D. Cal. 2014)

Court Description: ORDER ADDRESSING Amendment, DIRECTING Clerk of Court to Enter Final Judgment against Plaintiff, and Relieving Plaintiff's Voluntary Counsel of Record signed by District Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill on 6/16/2014. CASE CLOSED. (Sant Agata, S)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 ROBERTO A. SOTELO, Plaintiff, 11 v. 12 13 T. BIRRING, et al., Case No. 1:08-cv-01342-LJO-SKO (PC) ORDER ADDRESSING AMENDMENT, DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT TO ENTER FINAL JUDGMENT AGAINST PLAINTIFF, AND RELIEVING PLAINTIFF’S VOLUNTARY COUNSEL OF RECORD Defendants. 14 (Docs. 50, 156, and 165) 15 _____________________________________/ 16 17 I. Background 18 Plaintiff Roberto A. Sotelo, a state prisoner proceeding in forma pauperis, filed this civil 19 rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on September 10, 2008. Prior to June 3, 2014, this 20 action was proceeding on Plaintiff’s second amended complaint, filed March 22, 2012, against the 21 sole remaining named defendant, Barry J. Green, for acting with deliberate indifference to 22 Plaintiff’s medical needs, in violation of the Eighth Amendment of the United States Constitution. 23 On June 3, 2014, the Court granted Defendant Green’s motion for summary judgment and 24 notified the parties that the case would remain open pending resolution of Plaintiff’s attempt to 25 add a new party. That matter has now been submitted and it is denied for the reasons that follow. 26 II. Discussion 27 On May 21, 2014, in conjunction with his opposition to Defendant Green’s motion for 28 summary judgment, Plaintiff filed a “Doe Amendment to Second Amended Complaint.” (Doc. 1 156.) Defendant Green filed an opposition on June 2, 2013. Plaintiff did not file a reply. 2 Plaintiff’s “Amendment” consists of a notice he is substituting Dr. John Chau, M.D., for 3 Doe 1. However, while the operative pleading does identify Doe defendants, the deadline for 4 amending the pleadings was November 20, 2013, and modification of the pretrial scheduling order 5 requires a showing of good cause. Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4). No good cause to modify the 6 scheduling order has been shown. Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4); Zivkovic v. Southern California 7 Edison Co., 302 F.3d 1080, 1087 (9th Cir. 2002). 8 Accordingly, the Court HEREBY ORDERS as follows: 9 1. Plaintiff’s notice of amendment, construed as a motion to amend, is DENIED for 10 lack of good cause under Rule 16(b)(4); 11 2. The Clerk of the Court shall enter final judgment against Plaintiff and close this 12 case; and 13 3. Plaintiff’s counsel shall notify Plaintiff of the judgment and counsel is relieved of 14 his appointment to represent Plaintiff. 15 SO ORDERED 16 Dated: June 16, 2014 17 /s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill United States District Judge 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 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.