Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_19-cv-00307/USCOURTS-caed-2_19-cv-00307-18/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SHELDON RAY NEWSOME,

Plaintiff,

v.

M. LOTERZSTAIN, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 2:19-cv-00307-JAM-JDP (PC)

AMENDED ORDER DENYING WITHOUT 

PREJUDICE PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO 

COMPEL, GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ 

MOTION TO MODIFY THE SCHEDULING 

ORDER, AND SETTING A BRIEFING 

SCHEDULING 

ECF Nos. 58, 63, 67 

There are several motions pending in this case. First, plaintiff has filed a motion to 

compel defendants to provide further responses to his discovery requests, ECF No. 58, in 

response to which defendants timely filed an opposition, ECF No. 60. Thereafter, defendants 

filed a motion for summary judgment—arguing that some, but not all, claims should be dismissed 

for failure to exhaust administrative remedies—together with a motion to stay discovery and to 

vacate the dispositive motions deadlines in the November 9, 2020 scheduling order. ECF Nos. 61 

& 63. Plaintiff has not yet filed an opposition to defendants’ motion for summary judgment. 

Defendants have filed an additional motion to vacate the dispositive motions deadline or, in the 

alternative, to modify the scheduling order pending resolution of their motion for summary 

judgment. ECF No. 67. 

In light of defendants’ pending motion for summary judgment, ECF No. 61, the court 

finds good cause to stay discovery and to vacate the dispositive motions deadline. If defendants’ 

Case 2:19-cv-00307-DAD-JDP Document 72 Filed 01/12/22 Page 1 of 3
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

motion is resolved in their favor, plaintiff’s retaliation claim against defendant Dirisu and part of 

his Eighth Amendment claim against defendant Loterzstain will be dismissed, see ECF No. 61-2 

at 1, which would narrow the scope of discovery. Accordingly, the November 9, 2020 scheduling 

order, ECF No. 48, will be modified to vacate all current deadlines. Upon resolution of 

defendants’ summary judgment motion, the court will set new deadlines for the completion of 

discovery and the filing of dispositive deadlines. Plaintiff will be granted until February 10, 

2022, to file a response to defendants’ motion for summary judgment. In light of this order, 

defendants’ second motion to modify the scheduling order, ECF No. 67, is denied as moot. 

Plaintiff’s motion to compel, ECF No. 58, which seeks further responses to discovery 

aimed at the merits of plaintiff’s claims, will be denied without prejudice. Plaintiff may renew 

his motion, if necessary, after the motion for summary judgment is resolved. 

Plaintiff has two other outstanding motions: a motion to compel, which the court 

construes as a motion for injunctive relief, alleging that defendants are tampering with his mail 

and withholding legal documents, ECF No. 65; and a motion for injunctive relief, requesting a 

transfer to a different facility, ECF No. 70. Defendants have responded to ECF No. 65, but they 

have not responded to ECF No. 70. Because these motions are susceptible to concurrent 

resolution, the court will defer ruling on them at this time and will grant defendants until February 

10, 2022, to file a response to plaintiff’s latter motion for injunctive relief. 

Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s motion to compel further responses, ECF No. 58, is denied without 

prejudice.

2. Defendants’ motion to modify the scheduling order, ECF No. 63, is granted. 

3. Defendants’ second motion to modify the scheduling order, ECF No. 67, is denied

as moot.

4. Plaintiff has until February 10, 2022, to file a response to defendants’ motion for 

summary judgment. ECF No. 61.

5. Defendants have until February 10, 2022, to file a response to plaintiff’s motion 

for injunctive relief. ECF No. 70.

Case 2:19-cv-00307-DAD-JDP Document 72 Filed 01/12/22 Page 2 of 3
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

6. The parties will have seven days following the service of an opposition, if any, to 

file their replies.

7. The November 9, 2020 discovery and scheduling order, ECF No. 48, is modified 

as follows: 

a. all deadlines for discovery and the filing of dispositive motions are vacated;

and

b. an amended scheduling order will be issued following resolution of the 

outstanding motions, ECF Nos. 61, 65, & 70.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 12, 2022 JEREMY D. PETERSON

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:19-cv-00307-DAD-JDP Document 72 Filed 01/12/22 Page 3 of 3