Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_02-cv-02489/USCOURTS-caed-2_02-cv-02489-0/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JAMES ANTHONY MORRIS,

Plaintiff,

vs.

DR. CLAUD MITCHELL, DR.

DOUGLAS C. PETERSON, DR. M.

PENNER, DR. VONG, JANE DOE,

sued in their individual

capacities, and CHERYL

PLILER, LINDA L. RIANDA, and

RICK MANUEL, sued in their

individual and official

capacities,

Defendants.

Case No. CV-S-02-2489 (JKS)

O R D E R

This case has languished on the Court’s docket for some time. 

The Court sent out a scheduling and planning order outlining

relevant deadlines for discovery and related matters in this case. 

Those dates, including the deadline for dispositive motions, have

run. In response to the dispositive motions deadline, Plaintiff

James Morris has filed a motion styled as a “Dispositive Motion

Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a).” Docket No. 61. Additionally,

the State has filed a request to have the dispositive motions

deadline extended because Morris had failed to provide the State

with his final witness list and his preliminary statement of issues

by the dates outlined in the scheduling and planning order; a

Case 2:02-cv-02489-JKS Document 65 Filed 06/20/05 Page 1 of 3
ORDER 

C:\Documents and Settings\MKrueger\Local

Settings\Temp\notes4BF954\S-02-24829.008.wpd

failure that Defendants allege prejudiced their ability to file a

dispositive motion. Docket No. 60. While it appears that Morris’s

dispositive motion, as well as his final witness list and

preliminary statement of issues, were filed after the relevant

deadlines, it is clear that they have been filed now and that the

State has had adequate time to consider them in evaluating whether

they present the opportunity to file an appropriate motion for

summary adjudication. 

Because the Court wishes to be certain that the issues in this

case are not appropriate for summary adjudication before it puts

the parties to the time and expense of a trial, the Court will

grant the State’s motion and extend the deadline for filing

dispositive motions. If the State wishes to file a motion for

summary judgment, it is directed to do so on or before Friday,

July 15, 2005 . In addition, the State should include any

arguments it wishes to make in opposition to Morris’s dispositive

motion at Docket No. 61 with any dispositive motion it files. 

Should Morris wish to file an opposition to any motion filed by the

State, he is directed to do so on or before Friday, August 12,

2005 . The State’s reply, if any, will be due on or before

Wednesday, August 24, 2005 . 

As the Court’s prior orders have established, there is only

one remaining issue in this case—Morris’s claim of deliberate

indifference in violation of the Eighth Amendment to the United

States Constitution. Given that the issues in this case are so

limited, the parties should work diligently to meet the above

deadlines. Extensions of time will be granted only in cases of

exigent circumstances. 

Case 2:02-cv-02489-JKS Document 65 Filed 06/20/05 Page 2 of 3
ORDER 

C:\Documents and Settings\MKrueger\Local

Settings\Temp\notes4BF954\S-02-24839.008.wpd

IT IS SO ORDERED .

Dated at Anchorage, Alaska, this 17th day of June 2005.

 /s/ James K.

Singleton, Jr.

JAMES K. SINGLETON, JR. 

United States District Judge 

Case 2:02-cv-02489-JKS Document 65 Filed 06/20/05 Page 3 of 3