Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_02-cv-05094/USCOURTS-caed-1_02-cv-05094-3/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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MARCUS R. WILLIAMS,

Plaintiff,

v.

M. YARBOROUGH, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

CASE NO. 1:02-CV-5094-REC-SMS-P

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’

REQUEST FOR LEAVE TO FILE A MOTION

FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND

VACATING SECOND SCHEDULING ORDER

(Docs. 80 and 82)

ORDER REOPENING DISCOVERY FOR

LIMITED TIME PERIOD 

New Discovery Deadline: May 1, 2006

New Dispositive Motion Deadline: June 1, 2006

Plaintiff Marcus R. Williams (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma

pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action for damages is

proceeding on Plaintiff’s second amended complaint, filed August 21, 2003, against Defendants

Witcher and Yarborough on Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment denial of exercise claim, and against

Defendant Yarborough on Plaintiff’s equal protection claim. Pursuant to the Court’s order of

November 4, 2005, this matter was set for trial on May 2, 2006. On November 10, 2005, Defendants

filed a request for leave to file a late motion for summary judgment. Plaintiff opposed the request

on December 6, 2005.

Having considered the parties’ positions, the Court shall grant Defendants’ request for leave

to file a motion for summary judgment, and shall vacate the Second Scheduling Order, which set this

matter for telephonic trial confirmation hearing and jury trial, in its entirety. In his opposition,

Case 1:02-cv-05094-LJO -SMS Document 88 Filed 02/08/06 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

Plaintiff expresses dissatisfaction with the response he received from Defendants to his discovery

requests. In light of the fact that Defendants are being granted an opportunity to file a motion for

summary judgment despite the expiration of the motion deadline, the Court deems it in the interest

of justice to sua sponte extend the discovery deadline for a limited period. Plaintiff is cautioned to

review paragraphs 3 and 5 of the discovery and scheduling order filed on February 15, 2005. Any

motions to compel must be filed on or before the new discovery deadline, and must meet the

requirement set forth in paragraph 5.

Accordingly, based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Defendants’ request for leave to file a late motion for summary judgment, filed

November 10, 2005, is GRANTED;

2. The Second Scheduling Order, filed November 4, 2005, and setting this matter for

telephonic trial confirmation hearing on March 28, 2006, and jury trial on May 2,

2006, is VACATED;

3. Discovery shall be reopened for a limited period of time;

4. The new deadline for the completion of all discovery is May 1, 2006; and

5. The new deadline for filing pre-trial dispositive motions is June 1, 2006.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 7, 2006 /s/ Sandra M. Snyder 

i0d3h8 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:02-cv-05094-LJO -SMS Document 88 Filed 02/08/06 Page 2 of 2