Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_08-cv-00521/USCOURTS-caed-1_08-cv-00521-6/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

United States District Court

For the Eastern District of California

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

27

28

 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DWAYNE LUCAS,

Plaintiff, 

 v.

A.K. SCRIBNER; et al., 

Defendants. /

No. C 08-0521 WHA (PR) 

ORDER 

In this prisoner's pro se civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, all three remaining

defendants have appeared. The court stayed discovery, extended the deadlines for defendants to

respond to the amended complaint, and referred the case to the Pro Se Prisoner Mediation

Program. Magistrate Judge Vadas has filed a report that the parties were unable to resolve the

case through mediation or settlement. Thus, it is time to move this case toward resolution

through motion and trial if necessary. 

The stay of discovery that was imposed so that the parties could pursue mediation is

now LIFTED. Within thirty days of the date of this order, defendants must serve on plaintiff

their responses to any discovery requests propounded on them before discovery was stayed. 

Within thirty days of the date of this order, plaintiff must serve on defendants his responses to

any discovery requests propounded on him before discovery was stayed. The parties are

reminded that discovery requests and responses are not supposed to be filed with the court as

part of the discovery process. The parties may make agreements among themselves to extend

Case 1:08-cv-00521-WHA Document 45 Filed 08/02/10 Page 1 of 2
United States District Court

For the Eastern District of California

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

27

28

2

these deadlines without any need for a court order. The parties also are cautioned that the

requirement that they make a good faith effort to meet and confer any discovery dispute before

presenting any discovery dispute to the court is strictly enforced. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(1)

(motion to compel "must include a certification that the movant has in good faith conferred or

attempted to confer with the person or party failing to make disclosure or discovery in an effort

to obtain it without court action"). 

The court had granted defendants' requests to extend the deadline to respond to the

amended complaint until the mediation concluded. The mediation has now concluded, and it is

time to set new deadlines for answers and dispositive motions. The court now sets the

following new schedule:

1. No later than October 29, 2010, defendants must file and serve a motion for

summary judgment or other dispositive motion. If defendants are of the opinion that this case

cannot be resolved by such a motion, they must so inform the court prior to the date the motion

is due. 

2. No later than December 3, 2010, plaintiff must file and serve on defense counsel

his opposition to the summary judgment or other dispositive motion.

3. No later than December 17, 2010, defendants must file and serve any reply

brief.

4. If defendants do not file a motion for summary judgment or other dispositive

motion, they must file and serve their answer to the amended complaint no later than October

29, 2010. See 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(g)(2). A waiver of the right of reply is not an acceptable

alternative.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 2, 2010 . WILLIAM ALSUP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:08-cv-00521-WHA Document 45 Filed 08/02/10 Page 2 of 2