Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_08-cv-00778/USCOURTS-caed-1_08-cv-00778-9/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

EDWARD L. GRAY II, 1:08-cv-00778-OWW-GSA-PC

Plaintiff, ORDER STRIKING PLAINTIFF’S

MOTION TO COMPEL AS

vs. UNTIMELY

D. ROBINSON, et al., (Doc. 36.)

 

Defendants.

 

 /

Edward L. Gray II (“plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding with this civil rights action

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff filed the complaint commencing this action on September

25, 2007, at the United States District Court for the Central District of California. The case was

transferred to the Eastern District of California on May 9, 2008. This case now proceeds on

plaintiff’s first amended complaint filed on August 18, 2008. (Doc. 6.) 

On January 28, 2010, the court issued an order modifying the court’s December 1, 2009

scheduling order for all parties to this action, extending the discovery deadline to April 1, 2010 and

extending the pretrial dispositive motion to June 1, 2010. (Doc. 34.) The deadlines have not been

further extended. On April 22, 2010, plaintiff filed a motion to compel discovery. (Doc. 36.)

“The district court is given broad discretion in supervising the pretrial phase of litigation.”

Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 607 (9th Cir.1992) (citation and internal

1

Case 1:08-cv-00778-OWW -GSA Document 40 Filed 06/02/10 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

quotation marks omitted). On motion or on its own, the court may issue any just orders if a party or

its attorney fails to obey a scheduling or other pretrial order. Fed.R.Civ.P. 16(f)(1)(C). 

Plaintiff’s motion to compel discovery was filed more than two weeks after the expiration of

the April 1, 2010 discovery deadline in this action. Therefore, plaintiff’s motion is untimely and

shall be stricken.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion to compel discovery, filed

on April 22, 2010, is STRICKEN as untimely.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: June 1, 2010 /s/ Gary S. Austin 

6i0kij UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

2

Case 1:08-cv-00778-OWW -GSA Document 40 Filed 06/02/10 Page 2 of 2