Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-01701/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-01701-21/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

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

ERIC CHARLES RODNEY K’NAPP,

 Plaintiff,

 vs.

D. G. ADAMS, et al.,

 Defendants.

1:06-cv-01701-LJO-GSA-PC

ORDER CLOSING DISCOVERY

ORDER FOR DEFENDANTS TO FILE 

OPPOSITIONS OR NOTICES OF NONOPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF’S FOUR 

MOTIONS TO COMPEL, BY JANUARY 

24, 2014

(Docs. 108, 109, 110, 113.)

ORDER EXTENDING DEADLINE TO FILE 

PRETRIAL DISPOSITIVE MOTIONS, FOR 

ALL PARTIES

(Doc. 98.)

New Deadline for Filing Pretrial Dispositive 

Motions:

 April 30, 2014

I. BACKGROUND

 Eric Charles Rodney K=napp (APlaintiff@) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with this 

civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. ' 1983. Plaintiff filed the Complaint 

commencing this action on November 22, 2006. (Doc. 1.) This action now proceeds on the 

Second Amended Complaint filed by Plaintiff on November 13, 2008, against defendants 

Warden Derral G. Adams, Lieutenant (ALt.@) E. Smith, Lt. J. T. Tucker, Associate Warden S. 

Sherman, and D. Selvy (Classification Services Representative), for retaliating against Plaintiff

Case 1:06-cv-01701-DAD-EPG Document 115 Filed 12/09/13 Page 1 of 4
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

by confining him in Ad-Seg under false pretenses and transferring him to another prison, and 

against defendants K. Motty, Sgt. C. Pugliese, Lt. Smith, R. Guerrero, Appeals Coordinator 

Cooper, Appeals Coordinator V. R. Garcia, Appeals Coordinator R. Hall, and Does 1-5 

(Mailroom Workers) for interfering with his right to send mail in violation of the First 

Amendment.1 (Doc. 16.) 

On January 4, 2013, the court issued a Scheduling Order establishing pretrial deadlines 

for the parties, including a deadline of September 4, 2013 to complete discovery. (Doc. 98.) 

The discovery deadline has not been extended; however, Defendants requested and were 

granted two extensions of time to respond to Plaintiff’s Requests for Admissions, causing their 

responses to be due after the discovery deadline had expired. (Docs. 103, 105, 106, 107.)

Now pending are four motions to compel filed by Plaintiff:

(1) On September 23, 2013, Plaintiff filed a motion to compel Defendants to 

produce documents in response to Plaintiff’s First Request for Production of 

Documents. (Doc. 108.);

(2) On October 28, 2013, Plaintiff filed a motion for the court to deem all 

challenged statements in Plaintiff First Request for Admissions admitted, or in 

the alternative, to compel Defendants to make further responses to Plaintiff’s 

First Request for Admissions. (Doc. 109.);

(3) On November 4, 2013, Plaintiff filed a motion for the court to deem all 

challenged statements in Plaintiff Second Request for Admissions admitted, or 

in the alternative, to compel Defendants to make further responses to Plaintiff’s 

Second Request for Admissions. (Doc. 110.); and

 

1On March 12, 2012, Plaintiff’s claims for retaliation based on allegations that defendants (1) denied him 

indigent correspondence supplies, (2) delayed his mail, (3) obstructed his outgoing mail, (4) denied him all but the 

May 2005 issue of his subscription of Prison Legal News, (5) issued a false disciplinary write-up against Plaintiff 

for having a clothesline inside his cell, and (6) instructed CDCR personnel at SATF to limit Plaintiff to a sixtyminute non-contact visit with a visitor who had come over 250 miles to see him, were dismissed by the Court

based on Plaintiff=s failure to exhaust remedies before filing suit. (Doc. 88.) The Court also dismissed defendants 

Meaders, Cuevas, and Johnson from this action, based on Plaintiff’s failure to exhaust remedies for the claims 

against them before filing suit. (Id.) All other claims and defendants, other than those listed above, were 

dismissed from this action by the Court on August 17, 2009, based on Plaintiff=s failure to state a claim. (Doc. 29.)

Case 1:06-cv-01701-DAD-EPG Document 115 Filed 12/09/13 Page 2 of 4
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

(4) On November 25, 2013, Plaintiff filed a motion for the court to deem all 

challenged statements in Plaintiff Third Request for Admissions admitted, or in 

the alternative, to compel Defendants to make further responses to Plaintiff’s 

Third Request for Admissions. (Doc. 113.)

Defendants have not file oppositions or any other response to the pending motions to 

compel.

II. DISCOVERY IS CLOSED 

Discovery is now closed in this action. The deadline for the completion of discovery, 

including the filing of motions to compel, established by the court’s Scheduling Order of 

January 4, 2013, expired on September 4, 2013. (Doc. 98.) In light of the fact that Defendants 

were granted two extensions of time to respond to Plaintiff’s Requests for Admissions, causing 

their responses to be due after the September 3, 2013 deadline, the court shall accept Plaintiff’s 

four late motions to compel and deem them timely. However, no further motions to compel 

shall be accepted as timely in this action, and the parties are precluded from conducting further 

discovery. 

III. OPPOSITON TO MOTIONS TO COMPEL

Defendants have not filed any opposition or other response to Plaintiff’s four pending 

motions to compel. At this juncture, Defendants shall be required to file an opposition, or 

notice of non-opposition, to each of Plaintiff’s four motions. Defendants shall be granted until 

January 24, 2014 to file their responses. The court also finds good cause to extend the deadline 

for filing dispositive motions, for all parties, until April 30, 2014.

IV. CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Discovery in this action is now closed;

2. Defendants are required to file an opposition, or notice of non-opposition, to 

each of Plaintiff’s four pending motions to compel discussed above, by January 

24, 2014;

Case 1:06-cv-01701-DAD-EPG Document 115 Filed 12/09/13 Page 3 of 4
4

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. The deadline for filing pretrial dispositive motions is extended to April 30, 2014, 

for all parties to this action; and

4. All other provisions of the court’s Scheduling Order issued on January 4, 2013, 

remain the same.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 6, 2013 /s/ Gary S. Austin 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE DEAC_Signature-END:

6i0kij8d

Case 1:06-cv-01701-DAD-EPG Document 115 Filed 12/09/13 Page 4 of 4