Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_11-cv-02548/USCOURTS-caed-2_11-cv-02548-8/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

EDWARD LONG,

Plaintiff,

v.

D. MINER et al.,

Defendants.

No. 2:11-cv-2548 TLN 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 are several motions filed by the parties.

First, defendants have filed a motion to strike plaintiff‟s notice of change of address as 

false and to reinstate the undersigned‟s December 10, 2013 findings and recommendations, 

recommending that this action be dismissed due to plaintiff‟s failure to prosecute. By way of 

background, on December 9, 2013, defense counsel filed a request to dismiss this action based on 

plaintiff‟s failure to keep the court and opposing counsel advised of his current address. (Doc. 

No. 38) On December 10, 2013, the court issued findings and recommendations, recommending 

that that this action be dismissed pursuant to Local Rule 183(b). (Doc. No. 39) While those 

findings and recommendations were pending, plaintiff filed a notice of change of address. (Doc. 

No. 40) In the interest of justice, the court then vacated its findings and recommendations and

/////

Case 2:11-cv-02548-TLN-DAD Document 46 Filed 04/22/14 Page 1 of 4
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

allowed the case to proceed in accordance with the court‟s discovery and scheduling order. (Doc. 

No. 41) 

In their pending motion, defendants move to strike plaintiff‟s notice of change of address 

as false because plaintiff represented therein that he is located at an address other than Mule 

Creek State Prison where he is in fact currently incarcerated. (See Doc. No. 40.) Under Rule 11

of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, defense counsel contends that the court may strike 

pleadings as a sanction for improper litigation conduct. Plaintiff has not opposed or otherwise 

responded to defendants‟ motion. 

“Rule 11 is an extraordinary remedy, one to be exercised with extreme caution.” 

Operating Engineers Pension Trust v. A–C Co., 859 F.2d 1336, 1345 (9th Cir.1988). “[T]he 

central purpose of Rule 11 is to deter baseless filings in district court and . . . streamline the 

administration and procedure of the federal courts.” Cooter & Gell v. Hartmarx Corp., 496 U.S. 

384, 393 (1990). Here, plaintiff acknowledges in a recent filing with the court that he is in fact 

incarcerated at Mule Creek State Prison, but state that he would like the court and defense counsel 

to mail documents filed in connection with this case to his legal assistant in Lancaster, California. 

It appears that plaintiff is not familiar with the Local Rules of Court. Under Local Rule of Court

183(b), “a party appearing in propria persona shall keep the Court and opposing parties advised as 

to his . . . current address.” (emphasis added) Under these circumstances, the court will deny 

defendants‟ motion to strike. However, the court will order plaintiff to file a notice of change of 

address that reflects his current address at Mule Creek State Prison. Plaintiff is advised that the 

court requires service of all filings in this action at his current address because of the delays and 

difficulties that arise when inmates attempt to communicate with each other and/or with 

unincarcerated individuals.

Also pending before the court is plaintiff‟s motion for an extension of time to conduct 

discovery. Under Rule 16 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the court may modify the 

scheduling order for “good cause.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4). The “good cause” standard 

“primarily considers the diligence of the party seeking the amendment.” See Johnson v. 

Mammoth Re-creations, 975 F.2d 604, 608 (9th Cir. 1992). In this regard, the court may modify 

Case 2:11-cv-02548-TLN-DAD Document 46 Filed 04/22/14 Page 2 of 4
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

a scheduling order deadline “if it cannot reasonably be met despite the diligence of the party 

seeking the extension.” Id.

In his motion, plaintiff acknowledges that the court‟s discovery and scheduling order 

required the parties to complete discovery on or before December 20, 2013. Plaintiff has not 

explained why he seeks to re-open discovery in this action. Nor has plaintiff shown good cause 

to modify the scheduling order as required. See Zivkovich v. Southern California Edison Co.,

302 F.3d 1080, 1087 (9th Cir.2002) (“If the party seeking the modification „was not diligent, the 

inquiry should end‟ and the motion to modify should not be granted.”). Accordingly, the court 

will deny plaintiff‟s motion for an extension of time to conduct discovery.

Finally, the court observes that, under the court‟s discovery and scheduling order, the 

parties were required to file all pretrial motions on or before March 14, 2014. Neither party has 

filed a dispositive motion. In due course, the court will issue a further scheduling order setting 

dates for pretrial statements, pretrial conference, and jury trial. However, before issuing the 

scheduling order, the court will set a mandatory settlement conference in this case. If available, 

the court may order that plaintiff participate in the settlement conference by way of videoconferencing. Pursuant to Local Rule 270(b), the parties will be directed to inform the court in 

writing as to whether they wish to proceed with the settlement conference before the undersigned 

magistrate judge or if they wish to be referred to the court‟s mediation program for selection of 

another Magistrate Judge to preside at the settlement conference.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Defendants‟ motion to strike (Doc. No. 42) is denied;

2. Within thirty days of the date of service of this order, plaintiff shall file a notice of 

change of address that reflects his current address at Mule Creek State Prison. Failure to file a 

notice of change of address in accordance with this order will result in a recommendation for 

dismissal of this action;

3. Plaintiff‟s motion for an extension of time to conduct discovery (Doc. No. 44) is 

denied; 

/////

Case 2:11-cv-02548-TLN-DAD Document 46 Filed 04/22/14 Page 3 of 4
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

4

4. Within thirty days of the date of service of this order, each party shall inform the court 

in writing as to whether they wish to proceed with the settlement conference before the 

undersigned magistrate judge or if they wish to be referred to the court‟s mediation program. If 

the parties wish to proceed before the undersigned magistrate judge, each party shall return to the 

court the consent form for settlement conferences provided with this order. If the 

parties do not wish the undersigned magistrate judge to preside at the settlement conference, each 

party shall file a declaration stating he wishes to be referred to the court‟s mediation program; and

5. The Clerk of the Court is directed to send each party the consent form for settlement 

conferences. 

Dated: April 21, 2014

DAD:9

long2548.add

Case 2:11-cv-02548-TLN-DAD Document 46 Filed 04/22/14 Page 4 of 4