Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-01828/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-01828-24/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

REGINALD RAY YORK,

Plaintiff,

v.

G. GARCIA, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:15-cv-01828-DAD-BAM (PC)

ORDER DIRECTING DEFENDANTS TO 

FILE A RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF’S

MOTION TO MODIFY SECOND 

SCHEDULING ORDER

(ECF No. 93)

Plaintiff Reginald Ray York is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights action 

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

Currently before the Court is Plaintiff’s “memorandum of points and authorities in support 

of the Plaintiff’s motion to modify the attendance of unincarcerated witnesses and second 

scheduling order,” filed on December 23, 2019. (ECF No. 93.) The Court interprets Plaintiff’s 

filing as a motion to modify the Court’s November 12, 2019 second scheduling order, (ECF No. 

88). 

Specifically, Plaintiff requests a 60-day extension of the deadlines for filing a notice of the 

names and locations for the attendance of unincarcerated witnesses who refuse to testify 

voluntarily, a motion for the attendance of incarcerated witnesses, and his pretrial statement, and 

a 60-day continuance of the telephonic trial confirmation hearing. Plaintiff asserts that he needs 

the additional time because his motion for reconsideration of the undersigned’s order denying 

Case 1:15-cv-01828-KES-BAM Document 95 Filed 01/03/20 Page 1 of 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

2

Plaintiff’s motion for a court order to compel participation in a mandatory settlement conference 

and appointment of counsel is currently pending before the District Judge and he is also going 

through multiple surgeries for his various medical conditions. 

In this case, the Court finds that it is appropriate to require Defendants Garcia and 

Neighbors to file a response to Plaintiff’s motion to modify the Court’s November 12, 2019 

second scheduling order. Therefore, it is HEREBY ORDERED that Defendants Garcia and 

Neighbors shall file a response to Plaintiff’s motion to modify the Court’s November 12, 2019 

second scheduling order, (ECF No. 93), on or before January 17, 2020. 

Plaintiff’s reply to Defendants’ response, if any, must be filed on or before January 31, 

2020. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 2, 2020 /s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe _

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:15-cv-01828-KES-BAM Document 95 Filed 01/03/20 Page 2 of 2