Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_09-cv-01329/USCOURTS-caed-1_09-cv-01329-28/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

FLOYD SCOTT,

Plaintiff,

v.

J. PALMER, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

CASE NO. 1:09-cv-01329-LJO-SKO PC

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’

REQUEST FOR CLARIFICATION AND/OR

EXTENSION OF TIME, AMENDING

SCHEDULING ORDER, AND DENYING

PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS

(Docs. 107 and 110)

Deadline to Serve Discovery

Responses: 30 days

Amended Discovery Deadline: 07/09/2013

Amended Pretrial Dispositive

Motion Deadline: 09/09/2013

Plaintiff Floyd Scott, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed this civil rights action pursuant

to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on July 29, 2009. On December 31, 2012, Defendants filed a motion seeking

clarification of the deadline within which to respond to Plaintiff’s outstanding discovery requests

and/or an extension of time to respond. Plaintiff filed an opposition and a request for sanctions

under Local Rule 110 on January 17, 2013. Defendants did not file a reply and their motion has been

submitted upon the record. Local Rule 230(l).

Pursuant to the orderfiled on May 1, 2012, Defendants were required to serve their responses

to Plaintiff’s outstanding discovery requests on or before June 22, 2012. (Doc. 86.) However, as

addressed in the order issued by the Honorable Lawrence J. O’Neill on February 21, 2013, the filing

of Defendants’ vexatious litigant motion on June 22, 2012, had the effect of staying this action. 

Local Rule 151(b); Cal. Civ. Proc. § 391.6 (West 2013). (Doc. 116.) Defendants’ motion was

denied on December 21, 2012, and the stay remained in effect for ten days after the denial. Cal. Civ.

Proc. § 391.6 (West 2013). (Doc. 106.)

///

1

Case 1:09-cv-01329-SKO Document 122 Filed 02/22/13 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

27

28

The Court reiterates that it recognizes Plaintiff’s frustration in that his ability to engage in

discovery has been interrupted by an early motion for summary judgment and then by the filing of

a vexatious litigant motion. (Doc. 104.) However, the proceedings in this case have been protracted

and at times perhaps even confusing, and given the automatic stay under section 391.6, Defendants’

request for clarification and/or an extension of time is not unreasonable. Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4). 

Indeed, it behooves both sides to have clear parameters set as this litigation proceeds forward and

for both sides to have the opportunity to engage in full discovery. Therefore, Defendants’ motion

for clarification and/or an extension of time is granted, and the Court shall, sua sponte, modify the

scheduling order to accommodate the delay caused by the automatic stay.

Plaintiff’s request for sanctions under Local Rule 110 for noncompliance with the rules is

denied. This action was stayed from June 22, 2012, to January 7, 2013. Fed. R. Civ. P. 6; Cal. Civ.

Proc. § 391.6 (West 2013). Defendants’ motion for clarification and/or an extension of time was

timely filed and it was neither frivolous nor harassing under the circumstances. As such, there is no

legal basis for an award of sanctions against Defendants for filing the motion.1

Accordingly, the Court HEREBY ORDERS as follows:

1. Defendants’ request for clarification and/or an extension of time, filed on December

31, 2012, is GRANTED;

2. Defendants shall serve their responses to Plaintiff’s discovery requests within thirty

(30) days from the date of service of this order;

3. The discovery deadline is extended from March 29, 2013, to July 9, 2013; 

4. The pretrial dispositive motion deadline is extended from April 29, 2013, to

September 9, 2013; and

///

Federal courts have the inherent authority to sanction conduct abusive of the judicial process. Chambers

1

v. NASCO, Inc., 501 U.S. 32, 43-45, 111 S.Ct. 2123 (1991). However, because of their very potency, inherent

powers must be exercise with restraint and discretion. Chambers, 501 U.S. at 44 (quotation marks omitted). To be

sanctionable under the Court’s inherent power, the conduct must have constituted, or been tantamount to, bad faith.

Roadway Express, Inc. v. Piper, 447 U.S. 752, 767, 100 S.Ct. 2455 (1980); Miller v. City of Los Angeles, 661 F.3d

1024, 1036 (9th Cir. 2011); Gomez v. Vernon, 255 F.3d 1118, 1134 (9th Cir. 2001); Fink v. Gomez, 239 F.3d 989,

993-94 (9th Cir. 2001).

2

Case 1:09-cv-01329-SKO Document 122 Filed 02/22/13 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

27

28

5. Plaintiff’s request for sanctions, filed on January 17, 2013, is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 22, 2013 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto 

ie14hj UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

3

Case 1:09-cv-01329-SKO Document 122 Filed 02/22/13 Page 3 of 3