Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_03-cv-02006/USCOURTS-caed-2_03-cv-02006-9/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

CHRISTOPHER OATEY,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-03-2006 LKK JFM P

vs.

CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT 

OF CORRECTIONS, et al., ORDER AND 

Defendants. REVISED SCHEDULING ORDER

 /

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a civil rights action. On

October 31, 2005, plaintiff filed a motion to extend the discovery cut-off alleging that further

discovery is required based on the production of documents ordered after the court’s in camera

review. (See Orders filed September 22, 2005 and October 11, 2005.) Defendant Baillie objects

to the extension of the discovery period, alleging most of what plaintiff seeks could have been

sought through discovery requests by plaintiff long ago. Plaintiff replies that until he received

the confidential information produced after the in camera review he was unable to specifically

articulate the discovery he needs to pursue his claims. (December 7, 2005 Response.)

In addition, plaintiff included a request to amend his November 29, 2004 third

amended complaint to add as defendants IGI Officer Shaver and Lt. Clement who plaintiff

Case 2:03-cv-02006-LKK -JFM Document 104 Filed 12/22/05 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

2

alleges approved documents created by defendant Baillie even though the documents did not

contain the inmate signatures as required by CDC policy. Plaintiff alleges that had these officers

required defendant Baillie to obtain the necessary signatures on Baillie’s confidential informant

memos prior to approval, “the instant claim likely would not exist.” (October 31, 2005 request at

9.) The state defendants object, on various grounds, to an order allowing plaintiff to further

amend his complaint. In his response, plaintiff amended his request to seek leave to amend his

complaint, but plaintiff has not provided a proposed fourth amended complaint.

This court finds that plaintiff has shown good cause for the extension of the

discovery deadline. Discovery will be reopened for a period of four months. The parties are

cautioned, however, that any further discovery requests shall be issued forthwith so that any

resulting discovery disputes may be resolved prior to the close of the discovery period.

Plaintiff’s motion to amend his third amended complaint was not accompanied by

a proposed fourth amended complaint. As a litigant proceeding in forma pauperis, plaintiff’s

pleadings are subject to evaluation by this court pursuant to the in forma pauperis statute. See 28

U.S.C. § 1915. Since plaintiff did not submit a proposed fourth amended complaint, the court is

unable to evaluate it. Plaintiff’s motion for leave to amend must therefore be denied. Moreover,

this action was initially filed on September 24, 2003 and has now been pending over three years. 

Thus, plaintiff is cautioned that this court is not inclined to grant such a motion; plaintiff must

demonstrate good cause why he should be allowed to amend at this late date. 

On November 23, 2005, state defendants requested modification of the dispositive

motion filing deadline pending resolution of plaintiff’s motion to extend the discovery deadline. 

In light of the extension of the discovery period, all subsequent scheduling dates will be

continued and defendant Baillie’s December 2, 2005 motion for summary judgment will be

denied as premature. 

/////

/////

Case 2:03-cv-02006-LKK -JFM Document 104 Filed 12/22/05 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

3

Good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 

1. Plaintiff’s October 31, 2005 motion to extend the discovery deadline is

granted. The parties may conduct discovery until April 22, 2006. Any motions necessary to

compel discovery shall be filed by that date. All requests for discovery pursuant to Fed. R. Civ.

P. 31, 33, 34 or 36 shall be served not later than sixty days prior to that date. 

2. Defendants’ November 23, 2005 motion to extend the deadline for filing

dispositive motions is granted. All pretrial motions, except motions to compel discovery, shall

be filed on or before June 9, 2006. Motions shall be briefed in accordance with paragraph 7 of

this court’s order filed October 22, 2004.

3. Dates set in the March 17, 2005 scheduling order are revised as follows. 

Plaintiff shall file and serve his pretrial statement and any motions necessary to obtain the

attendance of witnesses at trial on or before September 8, 2006. Defendants shall file their

pretrial statement on or before September 22, 2006. The parties are advised that failure to file a

pretrial statement may result in the imposition of sanctions, including dismissal of this action. 

4. The December 30, 2005 pretrial conference is continued to September 29,

2006, before the magistrate judge. The pretrial conference shall be conducted on the file only,

without appearance by either party.

5. The March 21, 2006 jury trial before the Honorable Lawrence K. Karlton is

continued to December 19, 2006 at 10:00 a.m. in Courtroom #4.

6. Plaintiff’s October 31, 2005 request to amend, as amended by his December 7,

2005 motion for leave to amend his third amended complaint, is denied.

/////

/////

/////

/////

Case 2:03-cv-02006-LKK -JFM Document 104 Filed 12/22/05 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

4

7. Defendant Baillie’s December 2, 2005 motion for summary judgment is denied

without prejudice.

DATED: December 22, 2005.

/001

oate2006.41a 

Case 2:03-cv-02006-LKK -JFM Document 104 Filed 12/22/05 Page 4 of 4