Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-00644/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-00644-15/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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

GUY T. STRINGHAM,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S- 05-0644 FCD GGH P

vs.

J. BICK, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, seeks relief pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §

1983. The court directed re-service upon defendant J. Thomas on November 7, 2006, because

the waiver of service as to this defendant had been returned unexecuted on August 31, 2006, and

plaintiff had been directed to provide further information as to that defendant by Order, filed on

September 25, 2006, which he did on October 12, 2006. However, a review of the court’s

records indicates that defendant Thomas was named as an answering defendant in the June 16,

2006, answer to the amended complaint. Moreover, defendant Thomas is listed among the

defendants responding to plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction on November 28, 2006;

in defendants’ February 2, 2007, objections to the court’s January 8, 2007, Findings and

Recommendations; in defendants’ April 5, 2006, opposition to plaintiff’s March 13, 2007,

motion to compel; and again in the Notice of Compliance filed by defendants on April 10, 2007. 

Case 2:05-cv-00644-FCD-GGH Document 53 Filed 04/27/07 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

2

Therefore, although the docket does not indicate that an executed waiver of service has been filed

as to this individual defendant, by defendants’ filings, defendant Thomas is deemed to have

waived any argument that service upon him or her was not properly effected.

Pursuant to the concurrently filed stipulation and order, whereby the parties are

permitted an extension of time to conduct discovery specified therein, plaintiff’s motion to

compel discovery, filed on March 13, 2007, has been rendered moot and will be vacated. The

parties, have requested in light of the extended time for discovery, a modification of the

scheduling order, filed on December 6, 2006.

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that:

1. Defendant J. Thomas, by defendants’ filings set forth above, is deemed to have

been served;

2. Plaintiff’s March 13, 2007, motion to compel discovery has been rendered

moot and is hereby vacated;

3. The dates for the pretrial conference, for the filing of pretrial statements, and

for trial set in the scheduling order, filed on December 6, 2006, are vacated;

4. All pretrial motions, except motions to compel discovery, shall be filed on or

before August 27, 2007. Motions shall be briefed in accordance with paragraph 7 of this court’s

order filed April 11, 2006. The court will not look with favor on requests for extensions of

time.

5. Pretrial conference and trial dates will be set, as appropriate, following

adjudication of any dispositive motion, if filed.

DATED: 4/27/07 /s/ Gregory G. Hollows

 

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

GGH:009

stri0664.sch+

Case 2:05-cv-00644-FCD-GGH Document 53 Filed 04/27/07 Page 2 of 2