Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_11-cv-02548/USCOURTS-caed-2_11-cv-02548-9/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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

EDWARD LONG,

Plaintiff,

v.

D. MINER et al.,

Defendants.

No. 2:11-cv-2548 TLN DAD P

ORDER

Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed this civil rights action seeking relief 

under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Pending before the court are several motions filed by the parties.

First, plaintiff has filed a motion for an extension of time to respond to all future court 

orders and motions and pleadings filed by defendants. The court will deny plaintiff’s motion as 

premature. If plaintiff believes he needs additional time to respond to future court orders or 

motions and pleadings by defendants he may request an extension of time from the court at that 

time. 

Also pending before the court is defendants’ motion to modify the scheduling order. On 

April 22, 2014, the undersigned observed that neither party had filed a dispositive motion in this 

case and informed the parties that the court would set a mandatory settlement conference before 

issuing a new scheduling order for pretrial statements, pretrial conference, and jury trial. In 

defendants’ motion, defense counsel requests an extension of time to file a dispositive motion if 

Case 2:11-cv-02548-TLN-DAD Document 53 Filed 05/20/14 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

2

the case does not settle at the settlement conference. Therein defense counsel states that he 

refrained from filing a motion for summary judgment on behalf of defendants while awaiting the 

court’s ruling on his motion to strike plaintiff’s belated notice of change of address. Defense 

counsel’s given reason for not pursuing summary judgment in favor of his clients is somewhat 

questionable. By pursuing that course of action he ran the risk that the scheduling order would 

not be modified. Nonetheless, in the exercise of its discretion and good cause appearing, the 

court will grant defendants’ request and allow defendants to file a dispositive motion within fortyfive days after the settlement conference in the event that the case is not resolved at that time.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s motion for an extension of time (Doc. No. 48) is denied as premature;

2. Defendants’ motion to modify the scheduling order (Doc. No. 52) is granted; and

3. Defendants may file a dispositive motion in this case within forty-five days of the 

settlement conference in the event that the case is not resolved.

Dated: May 19, 2014

DAD:9

long2548.eot

Case 2:11-cv-02548-TLN-DAD Document 53 Filed 05/20/14 Page 2 of 2