Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-00225/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-00225-35/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

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

WILBUR ATCHERLEY,

Plaintiff,

vs.

CLARK, et al., 

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

1:12cv00225 LJO DLB PC

ORDER DIRECTING DEFENDANTS TO 

RESPOND TO PLAINTIFF’S OBJECTIONS 

TO DEFENDANTS’ NOVEMBER 4, 2014, 

ANSWER TO SECOND AMENDED 

COMPLAINT

(Document 177)

Plaintiff Wilbur Atcherley (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma 

pauperis in this civil rights action. 

On September 10, 2014, the Court granted Plaintiff’s motion to file an amended 

complaint in part. Specifically, Plaintiff was permitted to name Doe Defendants and add 

allegations against them. The Court also stated, “[a]s the Second Amended Complaint will not 

alter any allegations against any Defendant who has appeared, amended answers are not 

necessary.” ECF No. 110, at 7.

On November 4, 2014, Defendants filed an answer to the Second Amended Complaint.

On December 1, 2014, Plaintiff filed “objections” to paragraphs 49 and 50 of the 

November 4, 2014, answer. Plaintiff argues that Defendants have altered these paragraphs from 

Case 1:12-cv-00225-LJO-DLB Document 197 Filed 01/05/15 Page 1 of 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

27

28

admissions to denials. He contends that he relied on the admissions during the discovery 

process, and discovery is now closed.

The Court ORDERS Defendants to respond to this objection within fourteen (14) days of 

the date of service of this order. In their response, Defendants should explain the alterations, as 

well as their position on reopening discovery to permit Plaintiff to propound discovery related to 

their changes.1 Plaintiff does not need to file a reply.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 5, 2015 /s/ Dennis L. Beck 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

 

1 The Court notes that Defendants have opposed Plaintiff’s pending motion to reopen discovery, though his motion 

did not involve discovery relating to the altered paragraphs in the answer.

Case 1:12-cv-00225-LJO-DLB Document 197 Filed 01/05/15 Page 2 of 2