Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_11-cv-01025/USCOURTS-caed-1_11-cv-01025-7/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

DENELL CAVER,

Plaintiff,

v.

E. GOMEZ, et al.,

Defendants.

_____________________________________/

Case No. 1:11-cv-01025-AWI-SKO PC

ORDER VACATING PRETRIAL 

DISPOSITIVE MOTION DEADLINE AND 

REQUIRING PARTIES TO FILE STATUS 

REPORTS WITHIN THIRTY DAYS 

REGARDING AMENDMENT TO 

SCHEDULING ORDER

(Docs. 20 and 47)

Plaintiff Denell Caver, a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed this 

civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on June 20, 2011. This action is proceeding on 

Plaintiff’s second amended complaint, filed on April 10, 2012, against Defendants Gomez, Stark, 

and Garcia for acting with deliberate indifference to Plaintiff’s safety, in violation of the Eighth 

Amendment of the United States Constitution.

On April 2, 2013, Defendant Stark filed an answer, and the Court issued a scheduling order 

on April 23, 2013. Defendant Gomez subsequently filed an answer on July 12, 2013, and on July 

16, 2013, the Court issued an order extending application of the scheduling order to him. 

Defendant Garcia has now filed an answer, and his recent appearance on December 23, 2013,

necessitates some amendments to the scheduling order.

///

///

Case 1:11-cv-01025-AWI-SKO Document 51 Filed 01/06/14 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

Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The pretrial dispositive motion deadline of March 3, 2014, is VACATED; 1and

2. Within thirty (30) days from the date of service of this order, the parties shall file 

status reports addressing (1) how much time is needed to conduct discovery between 

Plaintiff and Defendant Garcia and (2) a proposed deadline to file pretrial dispositive 

motions.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 6, 2014 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

 

1 Due to severe resource constraints, the Court declines to entertain separately-filed dispositive motions by 

Defendants. Therefore, the deadline must be modified to accommodate discovery between Plaintiff and Defendant 

Garcia, and to allow for one pretrial dispositive motion on behalf of all three defendants, should Defendants choose to 

file a motion.

Case 1:11-cv-01025-AWI-SKO Document 51 Filed 01/06/14 Page 2 of 2