Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-01499/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-01499-19/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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

NEHEMIAH ROBINSON, No. CIV S-05-1499-LKK-CMK-P

Plaintiff, 

vs. ORDER

M. PENNER, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, brings this civil rights action pursuant

to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Pending before the court is defendants’ second motion for an extension of

time (Doc. 65) to respond to plaintiff’s discovery requests served on defendants King, Penner,

and Turella. Also pending is plaintiff’s motion for an extension of time (Doc. 67) to serve

discovery requests. 

As to defendants’ request, defendants had originally sought an extension of time

to August 8, 2007, to serve responses as to defendants King, Penner, and Turella. The court

granted that request and sua sponte extended the deadline for plaintiff to file a motion to compel,

if necessary, as to responses from those defendants only. Defendants now seek a further

extension of time to September 15, 2007, to serve responses. Good cause appearing therefor, the

Case 2:05-cv-01499-LKK -CMK Document 69 Filed 08/15/07 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

2

request will be granted. Defendants stipulate that plaintiff should be allowed 30 days after

service of their responses to file a motion to compel, if necessary. The court reminds the parties

that the foregoing extension and modification of the scheduling order only applies to discovery

already served upon defendants King, Penner, and Turella. To the extent plaintiff deems it

necessary to file a motion to compel regarding responses received from defendants King, Penner,

or Turella, the court reminds plaintiff that he must comply with the rules and procedures set forth

in the court’s March 8, 2007, order. In particular, plaintiff must attach to any motion to compel

copies of the discovery requests and responses at issue, along with proofs of service thereof. 

As to plaintiff’s request, he states that he wants an extension of the discovery cutoff deadline in order to serve new discovery requests. Because plaintiff has had ample

opportunity to serve discovery requests in this case, plaintiff’s request for an extension of time

beyond the current August 15, 2007, deadline is denied. Plaintiff may not serve any new

discovery requests. 

Finally, the court reminds the parties that, pursuant to the current scheduling order

issued on May 24, 2007, the deadline for filing dispositive motions is October 19, 2007. 

Because no party has requested an extension of that deadline, the court will expect that any

dispositive motions will be filed by that date.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Defendants’ second motion for an extension of time (Doc. 65) is granted;

2. Defendants King, Penner, and Turella shall serve responses to plaintiff’s

discovery on or before September 15, 2007;

3. Plaintiff may file a motion to compel as to discovery responses filed by

defendants King, Penner, or Turella only, if necessary, within 30 days of the date of service of

defendants’ responses; and

/ / /

/ / /

Case 2:05-cv-01499-LKK -CMK Document 69 Filed 08/15/07 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

3

4. Plaintiff’s motion for an extension of time file serve new discovery

requests (Doc. 67) is denied.

DATED: August 14, 2007.

______________________________________

CRAIG M. KELLISON

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:05-cv-01499-LKK -CMK Document 69 Filed 08/15/07 Page 3 of 3