Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-00921/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-00921-16/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 560
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Civil Detainee - Conditions of Confinement
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

1

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

Plaintiff Archie Cranford is a civil detainee proceeding pro se in this civil rights action 

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Individuals detained pursuant to California Welfare and Institutions 

Code § 6600 et seq. are civil detainees and are not prisoners within the meaning of the Prison 

Litigation Reform Act. Page v. Torrey, 201 F.3d 1136, 1140 (9th Cir. 2000). 

On October 17, 2016, Plaintiff filed a document entitled “Objection.” Plaintiff contends that 

he recently received a response to his request for interrogatories which were noted by defense counsel 

as untimely given the discovery cut-off deadline of September 27, 2016. To the extent Plaintiff 

objections to the discovery deadline, such objection is without foundation. 

Plaintiff is advised that pursuant to the Court’s January 27, 2016, discovery and scheduling 

order, the deadline for completion of all discovery, including motions to compel was September 27, 

2016. (ECF No. 31.) In addition, pursuant to the scheduling order, responses to written discovery 

requests are due forty-five (45) days after the request is first served, and such requests must be served 

ARCHIE CRANFORD,

 Plaintiff,

v.

ANTONIA OKPALA,

Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 1:14-cv-00921-LJO-SAB (PC)

ORDER REGARDING PLAINTIFF’S 

“OBJECTIONS”

[ECF No. 50]

Case 1:14-cv-00921-LJO-SAB Document 51 Filed 10/18/16 Page 1 of 2
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

in advance of the discovery deadline to permit time for a response and any necessary time to prepare 

and file a motion to compel. (Id.) To the extent Plaintiff challenges the Court’s discovery deadline as 

set forth in the Court’s January 27, 2016, such objection is overruled. Otherwise, the record is 

inadequate to rule on any other intended objection, therefore, Plaintiff’s objection is overruled, without 

prejudice. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 18, 2016 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:14-cv-00921-LJO-SAB Document 51 Filed 10/18/16 Page 2 of 2