Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_18-cv-00854/USCOURTS-caed-1_18-cv-00854-4/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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LAWRENCE CHRISTOPHER SMITH,

Plaintiff,

v.

GIBBS, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:18-cv-00854-NONE-BAM (PC)

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’

MOTION TO MODIFY THE DISCOVERY 

AND SCHEDULING ORDER

(ECF No. 38)

Plaintiff Lawrence Christopher Smith (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se

and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action 

proceeds against Defendants Gibbs and Handy1for the alleged excessive force incident of 

February 6, 2014.

The Court issued a Discovery and Scheduling Order on August 30, 2019. (ECF No. 23.) 

Pursuant to that order, the deadline for completion of all discovery was set for April 29, 2020, and 

the deadline for filing dispositive motions is July 9, 2020. (Id.)

On September 4, 2019, Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment on the ground 

that Plaintiff failed to exhaust administrative remedies. (ECF No. 24.) Plaintiff filed his 

opposition on October 15, 2019, (ECF No. 30), and Defendants filed a reply on October 21, 2019, 

(ECF No. 31). That motion is pending.

On December 16, 2019, Defendants filed a motion for protective order seeking relief from 

their obligation to respond to Plaintiff’s November 20, 2019 discovery requests until forty-five 

1 Erroneously sued as Defendant “Hardy.”

Case 1:18-cv-00854-DAD-BAM Document 39 Filed 04/21/20 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

days following the Court’s ruling on the pending motion for summary judgment, if the ruling did 

not resolve this action in its entirety. (ECF No. 32.) Based on Plaintiff’s statement of nonopposition, (ECF No. 33), and the possibility that a ruling on the pending summary judgment 

motion might resolve the case in its entirety, the Court found it appropriate to grant a stay of 

discovery with respect to Defendants’ responses to Plaintiff’s November 20, 2019, discovery 

requests. (ECF No. 34.)

Currently before the Court is Defendants’ motion to modify the discovery and scheduling 

order to reset the discovery deadline and the deadline for filing a dispositive motion for summary 

judgment. (ECF No. 38.) Defendants argue that it is unlikely the Court will rule on the pending 

exhaustion-based summary judgment motion before the expiration of the current discovery and 

dispositive motion deadlines. If the Court grants the pending motion, Defendants argue they will 

not be required to take Plaintiff’s deposition or file a substantive motion for summary judgment in 

this action, and therefore good cause exists to vacate and reset the deadlines for discovery and 

filing dispositive motions until after the Court rules on Defendants’ exhaustion-based summary 

judgment motion. (Id.) Although Plaintiff has not had an opportunity to respond to Defendants’ 

motion, the Court finds a response unnecessary. Local Rule 230(l).

Having considered the request, the Court finds good cause to vacate the current discovery 

and non-exhaustion dispositive motion deadlines. Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4).

Accordingly, the discovery and non-exhaustion dispositive motion deadlines set forth in 

the August 30, 2019 Discovery and Scheduling Order are HEREBY VACATED. Once 

Defendants’ motion for summary judgment on exhaustion grounds has been resolved, the Court 

will issue an amended discovery and scheduling order for the continuation of discovery and filing 

of dispositive motions.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 20, 2020 /s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe _

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:18-cv-00854-DAD-BAM Document 39 Filed 04/21/20 Page 2 of 2