Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_09-cv-00800/USCOURTS-caed-1_09-cv-00800-13/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

VIRGIL E. HOLT,

Plaintiff,

v.

R. NICHOLAS, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:09-cv-00800-AWI-SAB

ORDER RE: MOTIONS

(ECF Nos. 64, 66, 69, 70, 73, 74, 75, 80, 90, 91, 95, 

98, 100)

Plaintiff Virgil E. Holt (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma 

pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Currently pending before the 

Court are several motions and requests filed by Plaintiff and Defendants. (ECF Nos. 64, 66, 69, 

70, 73, 74, 75, 80, 90, 91, 95, 98, 100.)

I.

DISCUSSION

A. Plaintiff’s Motion For Court Appointed Independent Representative

On March 8, 2012, Plaintiff filed a Motion and Request for Court Appointed Independent 

Representative. (ECF No. 64.) Plaintiff requests the Court to appoint an “independent 

representative” to take pictures of various areas of the prison where the incidents alleged in 

Plaintiff’s complaint occurred, take measurements of those same areas and conduct interviews of 

other inmates witnesses.

Case 1:09-cv-00800-SAB Document 109 Filed 02/12/13 Page 1 of 7
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 fails to provide the Court with any legal authority authorizing the Court to 

appoint an “independent representative” to conduct investigatory activities on Plaintiff’s behalf. 

Although the Court possesses analogous authority to, in its discretion, designate counsel to 

represent an indigent civil litigant, 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1); Palmer v. Valdez, 560 F.3d 965, 970 

(9th Cir. 2009), the Court declines to do so here. Counsel may only be designated in “exceptional 

circumstances” based upon factors such as the likelihood of success on the merits and the ability 

of the petitioner to articulate his claims in light of the complexity of the legal issues involved. 

Palmer, 560 F.3d at 970. Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate that either factor exists here. 

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion for a court appointed independent representative will be denied.

B. Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend the Scheduling Order

On March 14, 2012, Plaintiff filed a motion seeking to extend the deadlines set forth in the 

Court’s scheduling order. (ECF No. 66.) Defendants filed an opposition on March 29, 2012. 

(ECF No. 67.) Plaintiff filed a reply on April 11, 2012, along with a motion requesting “leave to 

file [his] reply” and a motion to “supplement and amend” his original motion. (ECF Nos. 69, 70, 

71.) Both parties continued to file responses, motions, replies and other briefing on the issue. 

(ECF Nos. 72, 73, 74, 75, 76.)

Initially, the Court issued the original discovery and scheduling order in this matter on 

January 26, 2011, setting September 26, 2011 as the cut-off for discovery and December 5, 2011 

as the cut-off for filing dispositive motions. (ECF No. 37.) On December 7, 2011, the Court 

granted Defendants’ request to modify the scheduling order, extending the deadline for 

conducting discovery to March 20, 2012 and the deadline for filing dispositive motions to April 

17, 2012. (ECF No. 59.)

Plaintiff’s motion seeks a second extension of the discovery deadlines because Plaintiff 

was scheduled to make a court appearance in an unrelated matter on March 15, 2012. (Mot. To 

Am. And Ext. Disc. Sched. Order (“Mot. To Ext. Disc.”) 2:24-3:1.) Plaintiff stated that, upon his 

return from his court appearance, he will be without his “legal property” for an extended period of 

time. (Mot. To Ext. Disc. 3:2-11.) Plaintiff propounded discovery on Defendants and only 

received partial responses. (Mot. To Ext. Disc. 3:12-17.) After receiving complete responses, 

Case 1:09-cv-00800-SAB Document 109 Filed 02/12/13 Page 2 of 7
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

Plaintiff expected to serve follow-up discovery requests based upon the information received 

from Defendants. (Mot. To Ext. Disc. 3:12-17.) Plaintiff also notes that many of Defendants’ 

discovery responses are objectionable and may be subject to motions to compel. (Mot. To Ext. 

Disc. 4:6-25.) Plaintiff also notes that several responses are outstanding because Plaintiff gave 

Defendants an extension of time until March 20, 2012 (the last day of discovery) to submit their 

replies. (Mot. To Ext. Disc. 2:17-23.)

In their opposition, Defendants noted that Plaintiff settled the matter referenced in 

Plaintiff’s motion on March 13, 2012. (Opp’n to Pl.’s Req. for a 120 Day Ext. of Time (“Opp’n 

to Ext.”) 2:24-25.) Plaintiff returned to prison early. (Opp’n to Ext. 2:25-27.) Defendants also 

note that Plaintiff has already propounded 1,460 discovery requests to the 23 Defendants in this 

matter. (Opp’n to Ext. 4:24-25.) Plaintiff failed to explain why he did not include the discovery 

requests he intends to propound earlier. (Opp’n to Ext. 5:5-7.) Plaintiff’s subsequent filings 

explain that Defendants’ responses to Plaintiff’s discovery requests were delayed because they

were forwarded to various prisons under the mistaken belief that Plaintiff was transferred for his 

court appearance. (Mot. To Expurgate and Clarify the Record and Facts Before the Court 3:18-

27.)

“The district court is given broad discretion in supervising the pretrial phase of litigation, 

and its decisions regarding the preclusive effect of a pretrial order ... will not be disturbed unless 

they evidence a clear abuse of discretion.” Zivkovic v. Southern California Edison Co., 302 F.3d 

1080, 1087 (9th Cir. 2002) (internal quotations and citations omitted). “In general, the pretrial 

scheduling order can only be modified ‘upon a showing of good cause.’” Id. (quoting Johnson v. 

Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 607 (9th Cir. 1992)); see also Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 

16(b)(4). “If the party seeking the modification ‘was not diligent, the inquiry should end’ and the 

motion to modify should not be granted.” Id. (quoting Johnson, 975 F.2d at 609).

Here, Plaintiff fails to demonstrate diligence because he seeks to extend the scheduling 

order based on circumstances that were within his control. Discovery was open in this matter 

from January 26, 2011 to March 20, 2012--a span of 419 days. The Court will not extend the 

time to conduct discovery for an additional 120 days simply because Plaintiff had to attend to 

Case 1:09-cv-00800-SAB Document 109 Filed 02/12/13 Page 3 of 7
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

4

court proceedings on March 15, 2012, a mere five days before discovery would have closed. 

Plaintiff should have planned accordingly and propounded his discovery requests early enough 

such that the responses would not come on the last day of the discovery period.

The Court’s January 26, 2011 Scheduling Order specifically advised the parties that 

discovery requests must be served early enough before the deadline to facilitate a response and 

that the discovery deadline also applied to filing motions to compel. (Disc. Order/Sched. Order 

1:23-24, 2:15-16.) There is nothing within the multiple filings submitted by Plaintiff that 

demonstrates why Plaintiff failed to exercise diligence by planning ahead and propounding his 

discovery earlier to give himself time to propound follow-up requests or file a motion to compel. 

Accordingly, the Court finds that Plaintiff failed to demonstrate diligence and Plaintiff’s motion 

to extend the discovery deadline will be denied.1

C. Defendants’ Request To Extend The Deadline To File Dispositive Motions

On April 16, 2012, Defendants filed a “Response to Plaintiff’s Amended Motion to 

Modify the Scheduling Order and Reopen Discovery.” (ECF No. 72.) Buried within this 

document appears to be a request to extend the deadline for filing dispositive motions. (Defs.’ 

Resp. to Pl.’s Am. Mot. To Mod. The Sched. Order and Reopen Disc. 4:5-23, 5:12-14.) Since 

Plaintiff’s motion to modify the scheduling order was denied and Defendants failed to file an 

independent motion to extend the deadline to file dispositive motions, the Court will not consider 

Defendants’ request.

D. Untimely and/or Mooted Motions

Since Plaintiff’s request to modify the scheduling order is denied and Defendants failed to 

properly seek an extension of the dispositive motion deadline, the following motions are untimely 

under the scheduling order and shall be denied as untimely:

 

1

Plaintiff filed several motions/requests seeking permission to file additional replies, supplement 

the record, and/or “amend” his original motion to extend the discovery deadline. (ECF Nos. 69, 

70, 73, 74, 75.) The Court reviewed these filings thoroughly and having considered the 

arguments set forth therein, finds that none of them address matters that would sway the Court’s 

ruling on Plaintiff’s motion to extend the discovery deadline. Specifically, none of the additional 

briefs demonstrate Plaintiff’s diligence in conducting discovery in a timely fashion. Accordingly, 

Plaintiff’s requests to supplement, amend and add to his briefing will be denied.

Case 1:09-cv-00800-SAB Document 109 Filed 02/12/13 Page 4 of 7
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

o Plaintiff’s May 25, 2012 motion to compel (ECF No. 80);

o Plaintiff’s August 16, 2012 motion to compel. (ECF No. 90.)

Since the Court will deny Plaintiff’s motions to compel because they were untimely, the 

following motions related to the motions to compel are denied as moot:

o Plaintiff’s August 28, 2012 Motion for Relief from Court Order (seeking a stay of 

the proceedings pending the outcome of Plaintiff’s motion to compel). (ECF No. 

91.)

o Defendants’ October 8, 2012 motion to strike Plaintiff’s August 16, 2012 motion 

to compel. (ECF No. 100.)

Plaintiff’s September 10, 2012 Motion to Stay Proceedings to Complete Discovery will be 

denied as moot because discovery is already closed. (ECF No. 95.)

E. Plaintiff’s Request for Sanctions

On September 28, 2012, Plaintiff filed a motion requesting sanctions under Federal Rule 

of Civil Procedure 11 on the grounds that “counsel for defendants has filed a false summary 

judgment opposition under the pretext that plaintiff filed the document.” (ECF No. 98.) 

Defendants’ August 1, 2012 request for supplemental briefing inadvertently stated that Plaintiff 

had filed an opposition to Defendants’ motion for summary judgment and that, in light of the 

Ninth Circuit’s opinion in Woods v. Carey, 684 F.3d 934 (9th Cir. 2012), Plaintiff should be 

given the opportunity to amend his opposition if he so chooses. At that time, Plaintiff had not 

filed any opposition to Defendants’ motion for summary judgment. Accordingly, Defendants’ 

assertion that he had was false.

Defendants’ inadvertent error is not the type of misrepresentation that would justify 

sanctions under Rule 11. See Fink v. Gomez, 239 F.3d 989, 993 (9th Cir. 2001) (court may not 

issue Rule 11 sanctions for mere inadvertent conduct). Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion will be 

denied.

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

Case 1:09-cv-00800-SAB Document 109 Filed 02/12/13 Page 5 of 7
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

6

II.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s March 8, 2012 motion for a court appointed “independent 

representative” is DENIED (ECF No. 64);

2. Plaintiff’s March 14, 2012 motion to amend and extend the scheduling order is 

DENIED (ECF No. 66);

3. Plaintiff’s April 11, 2012 request/motion to supplement and amend Plaintiff’s

March 14, 2012 motion is DENIED (ECF No. 69);

4. Plaintiff’s April 11, 2012 request/motion for leave to file a reply to Defendant’s 

opposition is DENIED (ECF No. 70);

5. Plaintiff’s April 18, 2012 motion to “expurgate and clarify the record” is DENIED

(ECF No. 73);

6. Plaintiff’s April 18, 2012 motion for “leave to file reply to Defendants’ 

opposition” is DENIED (ECF No. 74);

7. Plaintiff’s May 10, 2012 motion for “leave to file reply to Defendant’s response to 

Plaintiff’s request to supplement and amend” is DENIED (ECF No. 75);

8. Plaintiff’s May 25, 2012 motion to compel is DENIED because it was untimely 

filed (ECF No. 80);

9. Plaintiff’s August 16, 2012 motion to compel is DENIED because it was untimely 

filed (ECF No. 90);

10. Plaintiff’s August 28, 2012 motion for relief from order of the Court is DENIED 

as moot (ECF No. 91);

11. Plaintiff’s September 10, 2012 motion to stay proceedings and complete discovery 

is DENIED as moot (ECF No. 95);

12. Plaintiff’s September 28, 2012 motion for sanctions is DENIED; and

/ / /

/ / /

Case 1:09-cv-00800-SAB Document 109 Filed 02/12/13 Page 6 of 7
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

7

13. Defendants’ October 8, 2012 motion to strike Plaintiff’s motion to compel will be 

DENIED as moot (ECF No. 100).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 11, 2013 _ _

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE DEAC_Signature-END:

i1eed4

Case 1:09-cv-00800-SAB Document 109 Filed 02/12/13 Page 7 of 7