Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_10-cv-00759/USCOURTS-caed-1_10-cv-00759-9/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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

THOMAS JOHN CARLSON,

Plaintiff,

v.

R. HANSEN, et al.,

Defendants.

_____________________________________/

Case No. 1:10-cv-00759-LJO-SKO PC

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO MODIFY 

SCHEDULING ORDER AND VACATING 

SCHEDULING ORDER PENDING 

FURTHER ORDER

(Docs. 35 and 58)

Plaintiff Thomas John Carlson, a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, 

filed this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on April 30, 2010. This action is now 

proceeding on Plaintiff’s third amended complaint, filed on November 6, 2013, against 

Defendants Worth, Newton, Rodriquez, Vega, Monroy, Angulo, Madrid, O=Brien, Abraham, 

Alvarado, Chan, Garza, Ikeni, McCave, and Villa. Defendants Worth, Newton, Rodriquez, Vega, 

Monroy, Angulo, Madrid, and O=Brien’s answer is due on or before January 20, 2014, and the 

United States Marshal is in the process of obtaining waivers of service from newly-added 

Defendants Abraham, Alvarado, Chan, Ikeni, and McCave.1

On December 16, 2013, Defendants Worth, Newton, Rodriquez, Vega, Monroy, Angulo,

Madrid, O=Brien, Garza, and Villa filed a motion seeking to modify the discovery and pretrial 

 

1 Newly-added Defendants Garza and Villa have already returned waivers of service. (Doc. 57.) Including three days 

for mailing under Rule 6(d), their response to Plaintiff’s third amended complaint is due or on before January 24, 

2014. Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(d)(3), 6(d), 12.

Case 1:10-cv-00759-LJO-SKO Document 59 Filed 12/20/13 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

dispositive motion deadlines set forth in the scheduling order filed on February 12, 2013.

Given the recent addition of seven new defendants and in the interest of conserving the 

Court’s and the State’s resources by ensuring this action proceeds forward under one scheduling 

order, the Court finds good cause exists to vacate the current scheduling order. Fed. R. Civ. P. 

16(b)(4). A new scheduling order will be issued in due course.

Accordingly, Defendants’ motion is HEREBY GRANTED and the scheduling order filed 

on February 12, 2013, is VACATED pending further order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 20, 2013 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:10-cv-00759-LJO-SKO Document 59 Filed 12/20/13 Page 2 of 2