Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_21-cv-01326/USCOURTS-caed-2_21-cv-01326-8/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

[Proposed] Order (2:21-cv-01326-DAD-JDP)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CHRISTOPHER KEVIN CLARK,

Plaintiff,

v.

MARSHALL SAIPHER, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 2:21-cv-01326-DAD-JDP

[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING 

DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO MODIFY 

THE CURRENT SCHEDULING ORDER

Defendants Naseer and Saipher (Defendants) moved the Court to modify the Court’s 

discovery and scheduling order (scheduling order). The Court has read and considered 

Defendants’ motion and the accompanying declaration of counsel, and finds that good cause 

exists to grant the motion.

Accordingly, Defendants’ motion is GRANTED. The Court vacates the current dispositive 

motion deadline of March 22, 2024. Pursuant to this order, Defendants’ summary-judgment or 

other dispositive motions shall be filed on or before May 21, 2024.1 Pursuant to Local Rule 

1 The parties are directed to Local Rule 230 (l). 

All motions, except motions to dismiss for lack of prosecution, filed in actions 

wherein one party is incarcerated and proceeding in propria persona, shall be 

submitted upon the record without oral argument unless otherwise ordered by the 

Court. Such motions need not be noticed on the motion calendar. Opposition, if any, 

(continued...)

Case 2:21-cv-01326-DAD-JDP Document 38 Filed 03/06/24 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

[Proposed] Order (2:21-cv-01326-DAD-JDP)

230(c), if Plaintiff Clark wishes to file an opposition to this motion he must do so “no later than 

fourteen (14) days after the motions [is] filed.” E.D. Cal. Civ. L.R. 230(c). Defendants may file a 

reply brief “[n]o later than ten (10) days after the opposition [is] filed. E.D. Cal. Civ. L.R. 

230(d).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 6, 2024 

JEREMY D. PETERSON

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

to the granting of the motion shall be served and filed by the responding party not 

more than twenty-one (21) days after the date of service of the motion. A responding 

party who has no opposition to the granting of the motion shall serve and file a 

statement to that effect, specifically designating the motion in question. Failure of the 

responding party to file an opposition or to file a statement of no opposition may be 

deemed a waiver of any opposition to the granting of the motion and may result in the 

imposition of sanctions. The moving party may, not more than fourteen (14) days 

after the opposition has been filed in CM/ECF, serve and file a reply to the 

opposition. All such motions will be deemed submitted when the time to reply has 

expired. 

Case 2:21-cv-01326-DAD-JDP Document 38 Filed 03/06/24 Page 2 of 2