Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_09-cv-01284/USCOURTS-caed-1_09-cv-01284-10/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

EVERETT GALINDO GONZALEZ,

Plaintiff,

v.

DERRAL G. ADAMS, et al.,

Defendants.

_____________________________________/

Case No. 1:09-cv-01284-AWI-SKO (PC)

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ 

MOTION TO MODIFY SCHEDULING 

ORDER AND STAYING SCHEDULING 

ORDER PENDING RESOLUTION OF 

MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE 

PLEADINGS

(Doc. 85)

Plaintiff Everett Galindo Gonzalez, a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma 

pauperis, filed in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on July 23, 2009. Following 

the decision by the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit on March 19, 2015, this 

action for damages is proceeding on Plaintiff’s third amended complaint, limited to Plaintiff’s due 

process claim arising out of his 2007 re-validation. On August 7, 2015, Defendants Espinosa, 

Fisher, Lunez, Rodriguez, Roman, and Ruff filed a motion seeking to modify the scheduling order 

pending resolution of their motion for judgment on the pleadings, filed on July 22, 2015.1 Plaintiff 

did not file a response to the motion.

The Court finds good cause to stay the scheduling order pending resolution of Defendants’ 

motion for judgment on the pleadings, particularly given both the parties’ disagreement over the 

 

1 Defendants’ motion for judgment on the pleadings has been submitted on the record. Local Rule 230(l). As the 

parties are likely aware, the Eastern District of California carries one of the heaviest caseloads in the country, and the 

Court will reach Defendants’ motion in due course. 

Case 1:09-cv-01284-DAD-SKO Document 91 Filed 10/21/15 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

claims for relief that survived following resolution of Plaintiff’s appeal and resource conservation 

considerations. Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4). Accordingly, Defendants’ motion for modify the 

scheduling order is HEREBY GRANTED and the scheduling order is STAYED pending 

resolution of Defendants’ motion for judgment on the pleadings. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 20, 2015 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:09-cv-01284-DAD-SKO Document 91 Filed 10/21/15 Page 2 of 2