Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_17-cv-00436/USCOURTS-caed-1_17-cv-00436-8/pdf.json

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

---

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LARRY SMITH,

 Plaintiff,

 vs.

SGT. J. GONZALES, et al.,

 Defendants.

1:17-cv-00436-DAD-GSA-PC

SCHEDULING ORDER

ORDER RE-OPENING DISCOVERY AND 

SETTING OUT NEW DEADLINES

NEW DEADLINES:

New Discovery Deadline : May 20, 2020

New Dispositive Motions Deadline : July 20, 2020

Larry Smith (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with 

this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This case now proceeds with Plaintiff’s 

First Amended Complaint filed on June 23, 2017, against defendants Sergeant J. Gonzales, 

Correctional Officer (C/O) Johnson, C/O Castro, C/O Miner, C/O Florez, and C/O Potzernitz for 

use of excessive force in violation of the Eighth Amendment; against defendant C/O Scaife for 

failure to protect Plaintiff in violation of the Eighth Amendment; and, against defendant Sergeant 

J. Gonzales for retaliation in violation of the First Amendment.

1

 (ECF No. 12.)

 

1 On February 19, 2020, the court issued an order granting summary judgment in favor of 

defendant C/O A. Fritz on all of Plaintiff’s claims against defendant Fritz based on Plaintiff’s failure to exhaust 

administrative remedies before filing suit. (ECF No. 57 at ¶ 2a.) In the same order, the court granted partial summary 

judgment in favor of defendant Sgt. J. Gonzales on Plaintiff’s retaliation claims against defendant Gonzales to the 

extent they are based on defendant Gonzales’s alleged issuance of an RVR to Plaintiff, and his alleged 

recommendation that Plaintiff be transferred. (Id. at 5 ¶¶ 2b.) The court previously issued an order on April 19, 

2018, dismissing all other claims and defendants from this case based on Plaintiff’s failure to state a claim. (ECF 

No. 19.) 

Case 1:17-cv-00436-KES-GSA Document 58 Filed 02/24/20 Page 1 of 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

27

28

On February 4, 2019, the court issued a Discovery and Scheduling Order establishing 

pretrial deadlines for the parties, including a deadline of August 4, 2019, for the completion of 

discovery, and a deadline of October 4, 2019 for the filing of pretrial dispositive motions. (ECF 

No. 33.) On September 5, 2019, the court issued an order staying the deadlines pending the 

resolution of Defendants’ exhaustion motion for summary judgment filed on April 30, 2019. 

(ECF No. 51.) The court indicated that a new scheduling order would be issued, if necessary, 

after the final resolution of Defendant’s exhaustion motion. (Id. at 4 ¶ 4.) 

The deadlines in the February 4, 2019, Discovery and Scheduling Order have now 

expired. Moreover, on February 19, 2020, the court issued its final order resolving Defendants’ 

exhaustion motion for summary judgment. (ECF No. 57.) Therefore, the court now issues a new 

scheduling order.

Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. By this order, discovery is re-opened;

2. The new deadline for the completion of discovery, including the filing of motions 

to compel, is May 20, 2020;

3. The new deadline for the filing of dispositive motions is July 20, 2020;

4. All other provisions of the court’s February 4, 2019, Discovery and Scheduling 

Order (ECF No. 33) remain the same.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 24, 2020 /s/ Gary S. Austin 

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

 

Case 1:17-cv-00436-KES-GSA Document 58 Filed 02/24/20 Page 2 of 2