Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_01-cv-06538/USCOURTS-caed-1_01-cv-06538-10/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 Plaintiff also alleges a claim for relief based on violation of the California Constitution. 1

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JACK ALLEN WILSON,

Plaintiff,

v.

CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF

CORRECTIONS, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

CASE NO. 1:01-CV-06538-OWW-LJO-P

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION

FOR AN EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE A

PRE-TRIAL DISPOSITIVE MOTION DUE TO

GOOD CAUSE NOT BEING ESTABLISHED

IN MOTION, BUT SUA SPONTE

EXTENDING DEADLINE FOR GOOD CAUSE

(Doc. 125)

Pre-trial Dispositive Motion Deadline: 04-30-07

Plaintiff Jack Allen Wilson (“plaintiff”) is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this

civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action is proceeding on plaintiff’s second

amended complaint, filed January 6, 2004, against defendants Terhune, Presley, Galaza, Yee, and

Bendon for enacting, implementing, and/or enforcing policies and/or practices that resulted in

deliberate indifference to plaintiff’s serious medical needs, in violation of the Eighth Amendment.1

Pursuant to the court’s scheduling order filed on November 16, 2005, the deadline for filing

pre-trial dispositive motions was September 18, 2006. The scheduling order applied to plaintiff and

defendants Terhune, Galaza, Yee, and Bendon. Defendant Presley, who was recently located,

waived service and filed an answer on September 18, 2006. In a separate order issued concurrently

with this order, the court issued the discovery and scheduling order applicable to defendant Presley

and plaintiff, as to plaintiff’s claim against Presley. On September 18, 2006, defendants Terhune,

Case 1:01-cv-06538-LJO -GSA Document 128 Filed 09/20/06 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 No party is precluded from filing a dispositive motion prior to the deadline. 2

2

Galaza, Yee, and Bendon filed a motion seeking a thirty-day extension of time to file a pre-trial

dispositive motion. 

Based on their motion, it appears that defendants Terhune, Galaza, Yee, and Bendon are

under the mistaken impression that the scheduling deadline of September 18, 2006, applies to

defendant Presley despite his appearance in this action on that date. That is incorrect, as defendant

Presley is subject to a separate scheduling order. Because the misimpression forms the basis of

defendants’ motion, the court cannot find that good cause has been set forth in the motion. However,

in light of the nature of plaintiff’s claims against defendants, all of which arise from his medical care,

the court finds, sua sponte, that good cause exists to extend the motion deadline because it is in the

interest of efficiency and conservation of judicial resources to consider one motion for summary

judgment on behalf of all five defendants. Therefore, the deadline shall be extended from September

18, 2006, to April 30, 2007, which is the deadline set forth in the scheduling order applicable to

defendant Presley.2

The court notes that plaintiff’s motion to compel and motion for an extension of the

discovery deadline as between plaintiff and defendants Terhune, Galaza, Yee, and Bendon is

pending. The court will address those motions in due course.

Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Defendants’ motion for a thirty-day extension of the pre-trial dispositive motion

deadline, filed September 18, 2006, is DENIED on the ground that good cause was

not established in the motion; and

2. The pre-trial dispositive motion deadline set forth in the scheduling order filed on

November 16, 2005, is sua sponte extended from September 18, 2006, to April 30,

2007. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 20, 2006 /s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill 

i0d3h8 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:01-cv-06538-LJO -GSA Document 128 Filed 09/20/06 Page 2 of 2