Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-06073/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-06073-12/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Virgil E. Holt, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

D. G. Stockman, et al., 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 1-04-6073-PHX-MHM

ORDER

Pending before the Court are Plaintiff’s Motion and Request for Emergency Injunction

(Doc. # 121) and Request for Extension of Time to Comply with the Court’s Rule 16

Scheduling and Discovery Order (Doc. # 122). 

Plaintiff submitted his Request for Emergency Injunction on March 7, 2010, explaining

that on February 19, 2010, he had been transferred to a new prison facility and was placed

in administrative segregation due to a lack of available bed space in the general population.

(Doc. # 21, p. 2) Plaintiff claims that as a result of this placement, he is being denied access

to his legal property and the law library and is thus being deprived of the ability to continue

pretrial discovery. (Id.) Plaintiff requests the Court to “issue an emergency injunctive order

commanding the warden . . . and administrative officials to . . . issue Plaintiff all of his legal

and allowable property,” “release Plaintiff into the general population,” or in the alternative,

“ transfer Plaintiff to a prison capable of meeting Plaintiff’s legal needs . . . .” (Id. at 3-4) 

Case 1:04-cv-06073-MHM Document 123 Filed 05/13/10 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 subsequently filed a Request for Extension of Time to Comply with the Court’s

Rule 16 Scheduling and Discovery Order, explaining that on March 10, 2010, he was

released from administrative segregation and that on April 14, 2010, he was issued some of

his legal property, thus enabling him “to prepare to continue to conduct discovery in

compliance with this court’s Scheduling and Discovery Order.” (Doc. # 122, Plaintiff’s

Declaration, p. 3) However, Plaintiff notes that “the lost 60 days [have] substantially limited

and reduced [his] discovery time, thus making it impossible to for [him] to complete

discovery within the time remaining.” (Id.) Plaintiff therefore requests the Court to extend

certain discovery due dates by 60 days.

Accordingly, based on the foregoing,

IT IS ORDERED denying Plaintiff’s Motion and Request for Emergency Injunction as

moot. (Doc. # 121)

Good cause appearing,

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED granting Plaintiff’s Request for Extension of Time to

Comply with the Court’s Rule 16 Scheduling and Discovery Order. (Doc. # 122)

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED amending the Court’s Rule 16 Scheduling and Discovery

Order (Doc. # 104) as follows:

- All discovery must be completed on or before August 23, 2010.

- All dispositive motions must be filed no later that October 23, 2010.

- A Joint Proposed Pretrial Order must be lodged by December 22, 2010.

DATED this 11th day of May, 2010.

Case 1:04-cv-06073-MHM Document 123 Filed 05/13/10 Page 2 of 2