Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-01150/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-01150-8/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

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

SCOTT K. RICKS,

Plaintiff,

 v.

G. LEVINE, et al.,

 Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

1:15-cv-01150-AWI-BAM (PC)

ORDER DENYING REQUEST FOR 

DISCOVERY SCHEDULING 

CONFERENCE AND FOR EXTENSION OF 

TIME

(ECF No. 40)

Plaintiff Scott K. Ricks (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma 

pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff initiated this action on 

July 24, 2015. On August 28, 2016, this matter was reassigned to Chief Judge Ralph R. Beistline 

for all further proceedings. (ECF No. 10.) 

On November 30, 2016, District Judge Anthony Ishii ordered this action to be related to 

Ricks v. Austria, et al., 1:15-cv-01147-AWI-BAM, and Ricks v. Onyeye, et al., 1:15-cv-1148-

AWI-BAM. (ECF No. 36.) The matter was reassigned to District Judge Anthony Ishii, and 

referred to the undersigned pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 

Currently before the Court is Defendants’ request for a discovery scheduling conference 

and for an extension of time, filed December 13, 2016. (ECF No. 40). Defendants note that 

before this case was reassigned by District Judge Ishii, Chief Judge Beistline had issued a 

scheduling and planning order, on November 16, 2016. (ECF No. 36.) Defendants argue that 

since this matter has been related to the two cases noted above, discovery and other deadlines 

should be coordinated, and they seek a telephonic discovery scheduling conference to discuss the 

Case 1:15-cv-01150-AWI-BAM Document 42 Filed 12/15/16 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

matter. Defendants specifically state that they (1) request for the November 16, 2016 order to be 

rescinded; (2) they intend to object to the provisions of the November 16, 2016 scheduling order 

requiring initial disclosures pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(1) if the matter is 

not rescinded; and (3) in the alternative, they request a sixty-day extension to comply with the 

Rule 26(a)(1) disclosure deadline.

Due to the reassignment of this action to this Court, the undersigned shall issue an 

amended discovery and scheduling order, in keeping with this Court’s usual practices. The dates 

and deadlines set forth in that amended order will be comparable to the deadlines in the original 

order, so as not to disrupt the orderly pretrial development of this action. A telephonic 

conference is not necessary at this time, and thus the request for one is denied. Furthermore, in 

accordance with Rule 26(a)(1)(B)(iv), this proceeding is exempt from the initial disclosures 

usually required under Rule 26(a)(1)(A), and the Court finds no need to vary from that general 

exemption in this case. As a result, Defendants’ request for an extension of time to comply with 

the Rule 26(a)(1)(A) disclosure deadline is denied, as moot.

Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that Defendants’ request for a discovery 

scheduling conference and extension of time, filed December 13, 2016 (ECF No. 40) is

DENIED. A separate amended discovery and scheduling order will issue concurrently with this 

order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 15, 2016 /s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe _

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:15-cv-01150-AWI-BAM Document 42 Filed 12/15/16 Page 2 of 2