Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_08-cv-00228/USCOURTS-caed-2_08-cv-00228-15/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CURTIS HIGHTOWER,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-08-0228 MCE EFB P

vs.

W. PATTON,

Defendant. ORDER

 /

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding without counsel in an action brought under 42

U.S.C. § 1983. He moves to modify the scheduling order and to compel defendant Patton’s

discovery responses. Dckt. Nos. 93, 94. Discovery closed on January 28, 2012, and dispositive

motions were to be filed by February 12, 2012. Dckt. No. 85, 65. 

In his motion to modify the scheduling order, plaintiff asks that “all motions turned in

from August 2011 until now January 21, 2012,” be accepted “with a 60 day extention [sic], from

this date, to each deadline . . . .” Dckt. No. 93 at 2.1

 Plaintiff does not clearly articulate exactly

how he wishes to have the schedule in this action modified, nor does he demonstrate that there is

good cause for any modification. The court has repeatedly informed plaintiff that a schedule will

1

 These and subsequent page number citations to plaintiff’s filings are to the page number

reflected on the court’s CM/ECF system and not to page numbers assigned by plaintiff.

1

Case 2:08-cv-00228-MCE-EFB Document 105 Filed 03/16/12 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

not be modified unless he demonstrates good cause. See Dckt. Nos. 95, 88, 80. Plaintiff’s

motion must therefore be denied. 

In his motion to compel, plaintiff appears to seek defendant’s responses to his requests

for admissions.2 Dckt. No. 94 at 9. Defendant’s responses to those requests are attached to

plaintiff’s motion to modify the scheduling order. Dckt. No. 93 at 18-24. With the exception of

one request, defendant objected to each request as calling for legal or expert opinion, and

claimed to lack sufficient knowledge to either admit or deny the request. Id. Defendant states in

his opposition that he has since served supplemental discovery responses on plaintiff in order to

address the issues raised in plaintiff’s motion to compel. Dckt. No. 103 at 2; see also Dckt. No.

104, Ex. 1 (copy of defendant’s supplemental responses). Defendant asserts that his

supplemental responses are his best attempt to respond to plaintiff’s requests for admissions.

Dckt. No. 103 at 2. As plaintiff did not file a reply brief or otherwise challenge the sufficiency

of defendant’s supplemental responses, it appears that plaintiff is now satisfied with defendant’s

discovery responses, and that plaintiff’s motion to compel is therefore moot. 

Accordingly, it is hereby ordered that plaintiff’s January 30, 2012 motions to modify the

scheduling order (Dckt. No. 93) and to compel defendant’s discovery responses (Dckt. No. 94)

are denied. 

DATED: March 16, 2012.

2

 The proof of service filed with the motion to compel is dated January 24, 2012. Dckt. No. 

94 at 14-15. Plaintiff’s motion is therefore timely. See Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266, 276 (1988)

(prisoner’s notice of appeal deemed timely filed on the date it was delivered to prison staff for

delivery to the court).

2

Case 2:08-cv-00228-MCE-EFB Document 105 Filed 03/16/12 Page 2 of 2