Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_04-cv-00695/USCOURTS-caed-2_04-cv-00695-0/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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DeWAYNE G. THOMAS, No. CIV S-04-0695-LKK-CMK

Plaintiff, 

vs. ORDER

JOSEPH A. BICK,

Defendant.

 /

Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, brings this civil

rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Pending before the court are plaintiff’s motion to

compel discovery responses (Doc. 16), and defendants’ applications for amendment of the

scheduling order (Doc. 19 & 22). Plaintiff’s motion in limine (Doc. 21) will be addressed, if

necessary, by separate order. 

As to plaintiff’s motion to compel, it appears that the heart of the dispute is

whether defendants were served with plaintiff’s discovery request. Specifically, defendants state

in their opposition to plaintiff’s motion that they never received plaintiff’s discovery request until

they received the instant motion on June 9, 2005, to which a copy of the subject discovery request

was attached. Defendants indicate in their opposition that responses could be forthcoming within

Case 2:04-cv-00695-LKK -CMK Document 24 Filed 10/13/05 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

2

45 days after receipt of the discovery requests. That 45-day period has now expired. The record

does not, however, reflect whether defendants served plaintiff with responses. In the absence of

evidence showing that, as of this date, defendants have completely failed to respond to plaintiff’s

discovery requests, this motion is premature and will be denied without prejudice to renewal if

defendants have not yet responded. The current discovery cut-off date of July 22, 2005, is

extended for purposes of this discovery dispute only should a further motion to compel be

necessary. Any such motion must be filed within 30 days of the date of service of this order.

Otherwise, discovery is now closed.

As to defendants’ applications for amendment of the court’s scheduling order,

good cause has been shown to support the requests. The schedule for this litigation will,

therefore, be modified as follows:

Dispositive motion cut-off – December 16, 2005

Plaintiff’s pre-trial statement due – March 17, 2006

Defendants’ pre-trial statement due – March 31, 2006

Pre-trial conference – April 3, 2006 (on the papers only)

Trial – June 27, 2006

Except for the modified dates set forth above, all other aspects of the court’s March 28, 2005,

scheduling order remain in effect. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s motion to compel is denied without prejudice;

2. Defendants’ requests to modify the scheduling order is granted as set forth

above.

DATED: October 12, 2005.

______________________________________

CRAIG M. KELLISON

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:04-cv-00695-LKK -CMK Document 24 Filed 10/13/05 Page 2 of 2