Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_01-cv-05017/USCOURTS-caed-1_01-cv-05017-0/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

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

ROWLAND D. PUGH,

Plaintiff,

v.

TERHUNE, et.al., 

Defendants.

 /

CV F 01-5017 OWW LJO P 

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO

SUPPLEMENT PLEADINGS (Doc. 77) 

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS

EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE

DISPOSITIVE MOTION (Doc. 78.)

 Rowland D. Pugh (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma

pauperis in this civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 

On October 20, 2004, this Court issued a Scheduling Order setting forth a deadlines of

April 12, 2005, for close of discovery, an Amended Pleadings deadline of May 12, 2005, and a

dispositive motion deadline of June 13, 2005. 

On June 6, 2005, Plaintiff filed a Motion to Supplement Pleadings. On June 8, 2005,

Defendants filed a Motion to Extend the Dispositive Motion deadline. These Motions are

currently pending before the Court and will be resolved below. 

A. Motion to Supplement Pleadings

As noted above, the deadline for the amendment of pleadings expired on May 12, 2005. 

Case 1:01-cv-05017-OWW -LJO Document 80 Filed 06/13/05 Page 1 of 3
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 acknowledges this in his Motion, however, Plaintiff did not request that the deadline to

amend be extended and further, sets forth no justification for his delay in seeking to amend the

pleadings. The Court has further reviewed the documents submitted by Plaintiff which are quite

lengthy. According to the Court docket, there are four parts to the document, including the actual

Motion, which is the first part. Each of the first three parts consist of 45 pages each. The first

page of the “Motion” (and one line of the second page), merely indicates that Plaintiff is the

Plaintiff in the action and sets forth the deadline for the submission of amended pleadings. 

Plaintiff indicates that he filed a declaration on May 2, 2005, and in that declaration,

Plaintiff states that he handed Defendants the Supplemental pleadings and intends to file them

with the court. The third page consists of a table of contents which sets out the rest of the

“Motion” in exhibit format. From a review of these documents, it appears that Plaintiff may be

trying to Amend the entire Complaint. However, because of the format, it is wholly unclear what

Plaintiff’s intentions are. Even assuming that is Plaintiff’s intent, the proposed Amended

Complaint consists entirely of exhibits, and is quite lengthy and likely in violation of Rule 8(a) of

the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. In any event, the Court will not expend judicial resources

in reading every exhibit and attempting to guess at Plaintiff’s intent. Moreover, as Plaintiff made

no request to extend the Amended Pleadings deadline and provides no justification for the late

filing of the submission, the Motion to “supplement pleadings,” filed on June 6, 2005, after the

expiration of the Amended Pleadings deadline, is DENIED. 

B. Motion for Extension of Dispositive Motion Deadline

On June 8, 2005, Defendants filed a Motion to Vacate deadlines pending the resolution of

the above Motion filed by Plaintiff or, in the alternative, an extension of the dispositive motion

deadline. Defendants confirm that Plaintiff handed Defendants documents at his deposition and

stated that he intended to file them with the Court. Because of this, Defendants state that they

did not conduct further work on the dispositive Motion. However, Plaintiff did not file the

supplements until after the deadline and the deadline for the filing of dispositive motions began

to encroach. 

Good cause having been presented, Defendant’s Motion to Extend the Dispositive

Case 1:01-cv-05017-OWW -LJO Document 80 Filed 06/13/05 Page 2 of 3
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

3

Motion Deadline is GRANTED. 

C. Order

The Court HEREBY ORDERS: 

1. The Motion to Supplement Pleadings is DENIED as untimely; and 

2. The Motion to Extend the Dispositive Motion Deadline is GRANTED. Any

dispositive Motion is due within FORTY FIVE (45) days from the date of service

of this Order. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 10, 2005 /s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill 

b9ed48 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:01-cv-05017-OWW -LJO Document 80 Filed 06/13/05 Page 3 of 3