Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_14-cv-00057/USCOURTS-caed-2_14-cv-00057-8/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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOHNNY L. FRANKLIN,

Plaintiff,

v.

F. FOULK, et al.,

Defendants.

No. 2:14-cv-0057 KJM 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 is plaintiff’s motion for a stay and defendants’ 

motion to modify the discovery and scheduling order.

On June 24, 2015, the undersigned issued findings and recommendations, recommending

that defendant Dr. Syverson’s motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim be granted and that 

defendant Syverson’s later-filed motion for summary judgment be denied as having been 

rendered moot. On August 6, 2015, the assigned district judge adopted the findings and 

recommendations in full and dismissed defendant Syverson from this action. While the 

undersigned’s findings and recommendations were pending, plaintiff filed a motion to stay 

defendant Syverson’s motion for summary judgment. In light of the assigned district judge’s 

recent order dismissing defendant Syverson, plaintiff’s motion for a stay of defendant Syverson’s 

/////

Case 2:14-cv-00057-KJM-DB Document 60 Filed 10/02/15 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

motion for summary judgment has now also been rendered moot. Accordingly, the court will 

deny plaintiff’s motion for a stay.

Defendants have filed a motion to modify the discovery and scheduling order in this case 

to extend the deadline to file dispositive motions to December 7, 2015. Specifically, defendants 

Rohlfing, Swingle, and Lee filed an answer in this case, while defendants Foulk, Zamora, Kelsey, 

and Ray filed a motion to dismiss. The undersigned’s findings and recommendations on 

defendants’ motion to dismiss are still pending before the assigned district judge. Defendants 

would prefer to file one motion for summary judgment on behalf of all of the defendants in this 

case if that becomes necessary. In the interest of judicial economy and good cause appearing, the 

court will grant defendants’ motion to modify the discovery and scheduling order in this case.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s motion for a stay (Doc. No. 54) is denied as moot; 

2. Defendants’ motion to modify the discovery and scheduling order (Doc. No. 55) is 

granted;

3. The parties shall file dispositive motions on or before December 7, 2015; and

4. Except as otherwise stated in this order, the court’s discovery and scheduling order 

remains in effect.

Dated: October 1, 2015

DAD:9

fran0057.41mod 

Case 2:14-cv-00057-KJM-DB Document 60 Filed 10/02/15 Page 2 of 2