Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-05932/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-05932-10/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

MICHAEL PADDOCK,

Plaintiff,

v.

JEANNE WOODFORD, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

CASE NO. 1:04-CV-05932-OWW-SMS-P

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’

MOTION FOR MODIFICATION OF THE

SCHEDULING ORDER, AND EXTENDING

PRETRIAL DISPOSITIVE MOTION

DEADLINE TO JANUARY 26, 2007

(Doc. 54) 

Plaintiff Michael Paddock (“plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma

pauperis in this civil action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc-1 (Religious Land Use and

Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000). This action is proceeding against defendants Woodford and

Mendoza-Powers (“defendants”) on plaintiff’s RLUIPA claim for injunctive relief. 

On December 15, 2005, plaintiff filed a motion seeking a preliminary injunction prohibiting

enforcement of the grooming regulations against him. The regulation at issue in this action and in

plaintiff’s motion prohibited male inmates from keeping their hair any longer than three inches.

However, the regulation was modified in early 2006 to permit inmates to wear their hair any length

as long as it does “not extend over the eyebrows, cover the inmate’s face or pose a health or safety

risk.” Cal. Code Regs., tit. 15 § 3062(e) (2006). Due to the modification, on February 17, 2006, the

Court ordered plaintiff to either notify the Court that his pending motion was moot, or file a

supplement to his motion setting forth the reason for his belief that his motion was not moot. 

///

Case 1:04-cv-05932-OWW -SMS Document 55 Filed 10/26/06 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

Plaintiff notified the Court that his motion was moot and the motion was deemed withdrawn on

March 22, 2006.

On August 25, 2006, defendants filed a motion seeking to vacate the scheduling order, on

the ground that it appeared this action had come to a close. Defendants seek an order dismissing this

action, or clarification and leave to file a motion for summary judgment. Plaintiff did not file a

response. 

In his complaint, plaintiff seeks an order prohibiting coercive enforcement of the grooming

regulation against him, and the removal of any disciplinary reports in his central file stemming from

non-compliance with the grooming regulation. Plaintiff’s request for an injunction prohibiting

enforcement of the grooming regulation has been rendered moot by the modification of the

regulation, but plaintiff’s request for removal of the disciplinary reports from his central file has not.

Unlike in case number 1:03-CV-06258-AWI-SMS-P Collins v. Alameida, counsel has submitted no

evidence that the disciplinary reports have been expunged from plaintiff’s central file. Therefore,

this action is not moot. If the disciplinary reports have been expunged and counsel wishes to submit

evidence of that, he may do so. 

Pursuant to the Court’s discovery and scheduling order, the deadline for filing pretrial

dispositive motions was September 28, 2006. In light of this order, the scheduling order shall be

modified and the deadline shall be extended to January 26, 2007.

Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Defendants’ motion to modify the scheduling order is GRANTED; and

2. The pretrial dispositive motion deadline is extended to January 26, 2007.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 25, 2006 /s/ Sandra M. Snyder 

icido3 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:04-cv-05932-OWW -SMS Document 55 Filed 10/26/06 Page 2 of 2