Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_02-cv-05003/USCOURTS-caed-1_02-cv-05003-3/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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MALCOLM ANDRE YOUNG,

Plaintiff,

v.

ROBERT A. DANIELSON,

Defendants.

 /

CV F 02 5003 REC SMS P 

ORDER REQUIRING DEFENDANTS TO

PROVIDE FURTHER BRIEFING ON

REQUEST FOR LEAVE TO FILE

DISPOSITIVE MOTION 

(Doc. 64.) 

Malcolm Andre Young (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma

pauperis in this civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 

On February 16, 2005, this Court issued a Second Scheduling Order setting a Telephonic

Trial Confirmation Hearing for August 16, 2005, at 10:00 a.m. before the undersigned and trial

for September 27, 2005, at 9:00 a.m. before District Court Judge Coyle. Plaintiff filed a timely

pretrial statement on April 20, 2005. Defendant’s deadline for filing a pretrial statement was

June 3, 2005. On May 26, 2005, Defendants moved for an extension of time to submit

the pretrial statement citing a recently received injury by Defense Counsel. The request was

Case 1:02-cv-05003-REC -SMS Document 66 Filed 07/15/05 Page 1 of 3
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

1Rule 16(b) provides that a scheduling order “shall control the subsequent course of the action unless

modified by a subsequent order” and shall not be modified except upon a showing of good cause and by leave of the

district judge or, when authorized by local rule, by a magistrate judge.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 16(b), (e). 

2

granted and on July 7, 2005, the pretrial statement was filed.

On July 11, 2005, the Court issued an Order setting a deadline for the filing of Motions in

Limine. The Court noted that Defendant’s Pretrial Statement indicated that Defendants would

seek leave to file a Motion for Summary Judgment as there are no triable issues of fact and the

case is barred by the Statute of Limitations. The Court informed Defendant that the dispositive

motion deadline has expired and that in order to raise such issues at this stage in the proceedings,

Defendants must seek relief from the dispositive motion deadline under Rule 16 of the Federal

Rules of Civil Procedure. However, also on July 11, 2005, and just prior to the Court’s issuance

of its order noting Defendant’s intentions, Defendant filed a “Request for Leave to file

Dispositive Motions.” The Motion consisted of Defense Counsel’s Declaration which asserted

only that there were no triable issues of fact and that this was discovered only upon examination

of Plaintiff’s Pretrial Statement. Defense Counsel adds that he sustained injuries from a “nonauto” accident and has been unable to work full time since May 3, 2005. 

The Court has examined Defendant’s Request for Leave to File a Dispositive Motion and

finds that Defendants present insufficient information to resolve the request. As noted above, the

appropriate standard of review for such a request is Rule 16 of the Federal Rules of Civil

Procedure which requires a showing of good cause.1 Here, however, Defendant’s provide

inconsistent and vague information as to why relief from the scheduling order should be granted. 

For example, in the Pretrial Statement, Defendants state that the facts presented in Plaintiff’s

Pretrial statement establish that the case is barred by the Statute of Limitations and that the

evidence in the case further establishes that there are no triable issues of fact. (Defendant’s

Pretrial Statement at 7.) In the Request for Leave to File a Dispositive Motion, Defendants state

that in reviewing Plaintiff’s Pretrial Statement Counsel discovered that “some or all” of the

Defendants “may be” entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Thus, it is unclear to the Court

whether the Request is based on the evidence in the record or the Pretrial Statement, whether the

Case 1:02-cv-05003-REC -SMS Document 66 Filed 07/15/05 Page 2 of 3
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

3

case is barred by the Statute of Limitations or there is no triable issue of fact, and which

Defendants might be entitled to Summary Judgment. Defendants further present no justification

as to why the dispositive motion deadline expired without the submission of a Motion for

Summary Judgment or dismissal for statute of limitations. 

Accordingly, based on the above, Defendants SHALL provide further briefing to provide

more detail as to the basis of the Motion. Defendant’s briefing is due on or before July 28, 2005. 

Due to the encroaching deadline for the filing of Motions in Limine and the Telephonic Trial

Confirmation Hearing, no requests for extensions of time will be entertained by the Court. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 14, 2005 /s/ Sandra M. Snyder 

icido3 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:02-cv-05003-REC -SMS Document 66 Filed 07/15/05 Page 3 of 3