Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_11-cv-01915/USCOURTS-caed-1_11-cv-01915-10/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

BRENT ADLER,

Plaintiff,

v.

F. GONZALEZ, et al.,

Defendants.

CASE NO. 1:11-cv-1915-LJO-MJS (PC)

ORDER (1) VACATING DISCOVERY 

STAY (ECF No. 57), AND (2) MODIFYING 

DISCOVERY AND SCHEDULING ORDER 

(ECF No. 18)

AMENDED:

Discovery Cut-Off: February 6, 2015

Dispositive Motion Deadline: April 10, 2015

Plaintiff is a former state prisoner who initiated this civil rights action pro se and in 

forma pauperis on November 17, 2011. (ECF No. 1.) Plaintiff since has been released 

from prison and obtained counsel. (ECF Nos. 36 & 51.) This action proceeds against 

Defendants Negrete, Zanchi, Carrasco, Holland, Gonzalez, Steadman, Bryant, Schuyler, 

Lundy, Stainer, and Does Nos. 1, 2, 4, 5, and 6 on Plaintiff’s First Amendment freedom 

of religion claim. (ECF Nos. 37, 38, 59, 62).

The Court dismissed Plaintiff’s initial complaint for failure to state a claim, but 

gave leave to amend. (ECF No. 7.) Plaintiff filed an amended complaint (ECF No. 8), 

which the Court found stated a cognizable First Amendment Claim, but did not address 

RLUIPA (ECF No. 12). While service was pending, Plaintiff filed a motion for 

Case 1:11-cv-01915-DAD-MJS Document 63 Filed 11/06/14 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

2

reconsideration of the Court’s screening order, arguing that he also alleged a cognizable 

RLUIPA claim. (ECF No. 16.) Defendants waived service and answered the complaint. 

(ECF No. 17 & 20.) The Court issued a discovery and scheduling order, setting June 18, 

2013 as the discovery cut-off, and August 29, 2013 as the dispositive motion deadline. 

(ECF No. 18.) Thereafter, Defendants filed motions to dismiss. (ECF Nos. 29 & 30.) 

On February 4, 2013, the Court granted Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration, 

vacated its prior screening order, struck Defendants’ motions to dismiss, and ordered 

Defendants to file an amended responsive pleading within thirty days of the Court’s 

forthcoming amended screening order. (ECF No. 32.) On March 8, 2013, Defendants 

filed a motion to stay discovery until the issuance of the amended screening order. (ECF 

No. 34.)

The Court issued an amended screening order on August 16, 2013. (ECF No. 

38.) On September 16, 2013, Defendants filed an unenumerated Rule 12(b) motion to 

dismiss based on Plaintiff’s failure to exhaust his administrative remedies. (ECF No. 39.)

On September 30, 2013, the Court stayed discovery pending resolution of the motion to 

dismiss. (ECF No. 40.)

While the motion to dismiss was pending, the United State court of Appeals for 

the Ninth Circuit ruled in Albino v. Baca, 747 F.3d 1162 (9th Cir. 2014), that an 

unenumerated Rule 12(b) motion is no longer the proper procedural device for raising 

the issue of exhaustion. On June 9, 2014, Defendants moved to convert their motion into 

a motion for summary judgment. (ECF No. 46.) On June 20, 2014, the Court denied 

Defendants’ motion to dismiss without prejudice based on Albino, vacated the discovery 

stay, denied Defendants’ request to convert, and ordered Defendants to file a responsive 

pleading or motion within thirty days. (ECF No. 47.)

On July 3, 2014, Plaintiff moved to extend the discovery cut-off. (ECF No. 48.) On 

July 21, 2014, Defendants moved to dismiss Plaintiff’s RLUIPA claims and his claims 

against Defendant Holmstrom under Rule 12(b)(6). They also sought partial summary 

Case 1:11-cv-01915-DAD-MJS Document 63 Filed 11/06/14 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

3

judgment on several of Plaintiff’s First Amendment claims for failure to exhaust. (ECF 

No. 49.) Simultaneously, Defendants sought to stay discovery pending resolution of their 

motions. (ECF No. 50.) 

On September 30, 2014, the Court denied Plaintiff’s motion to extend the 

discovery cut-off as premature and granted Defendants’ motion to stay discovery. (ECF 

No. 57.) On October 14, 2014, the undersigned issued findings and recommendations to 

grant Defendants’ motion for partial summary judgment and motion to dismiss. (ECF No. 

59.) The District Judge assigned to the case adopted the findings and recommendations 

on November 4, 2014. (ECF No. 62.)

Inasmuch as Defendants’ motion to dismiss and motion for summary judgment 

have been resolved, the discovery stay imposed on September 30, 2014 (ECF No. 57),

is HEREBY VACATED. Additionally, the discovery cut-off is HEREBY EXTENDED to 

February 6, 2015. The deadline for filing dispositive motions is HEREBY EXTENDED to 

April 10, 2015.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 5, 2014 /s/Michael J. Seng 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:11-cv-01915-DAD-MJS Document 63 Filed 11/06/14 Page 3 of 3