Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-01238/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-01238-8/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

OLIVER VANN,

Plaintiff,

v.

D. HERNANDEZ, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

CASE NO. 1:07-cv-01238-LJO-SMS PC

ORDER REQUIRING PLAINTIFF TO FILE

RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO

COMPEL AND FOR SANCTIONS

(Doc. 25)

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’

MOTIONS FOR AN EXTENSION OF THE

PRETRIAL DISPOSITIVE MOTION

DEADLINE AND TO MODIFY THE

SCHEDULING ORDER, AND VACATING

MOTION DEADLINE PENDING

RESOLUTION OF MOTION TO COMPEL

AND FOR SANCTIONS

(Docs. 25 and 27)

Plaintiff Oliver Vann, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed this civil rights action on

August 24, 2007, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and California law. This action is proceeding on

Plaintiff’s amended complaint, filed April 25, 2008, against Defendants Melendez, Hernandez, and

McBride for use of excessive force, denial of equal protection, and retaliation. The events at issue

in this action allegedly occurred in 2006 while Plaintiff was housed at Pleasant Valley State Prison

in Coalinga, California.

On December 7, 2009, Defendants filed a motion to compel discovery responses and for

sanctions. Plaintiff failed to respond to the motion. Local Rule 230(l). Plaintiff is required to file

a response to Defendants’ motion to compel and for sanctions within thirty days. 

1

Case 1:07-cv-01238-LJO -SMS Document 28 Filed 01/25/10 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

In their motion to compel and for sanctions, Defendants seek an extension of the deadline

for filing pretrial dispositive motions pending a ruling on their motion, and request that the deadline

be extended two months past when Plaintiff serves the discovery responses they seek. On January

15, 2010, Defendants filed a motion seeking to modify the scheduling order to extend the deadline

to April 12, 2010, in light of Defendant Hernandez’s extended absence from work due to disability.

Defendants’ motions shall be granted, and the pretrial dispositive motion deadline of January

25, 2010, shall be vacated pending resolution of Defendants’ motion to compel and for sanctions. 

If necessary following resolution of Defendants’ motion to compel and for sanctions, a new deadline

will be set and will accommodate Defendants’ need for the discovery they seek in their motion to

compel.

Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff shall file an opposition or a statement of non-opposition to Defendants’

motion to compel and for sanctions within thirty (30) days from the date of service

of this order;

2 The failure to respond to Defendants’ motion in compliance with this order will

result in the imposition of sanctions deemed appropriate by the Court, which may

include dismissal of this action with prejudice;

3. Defendants’ motion to extend the pretrial dispositive motion deadline, filed

December 7, 2009, and motion to modify the scheduling order, filed January 15,

2010, are GRANTED; and

4. The pretrial dispositive motion deadline of January 25, 2010, is VACATED pending

resolution of Defendants’ motion to compel and for sanctions.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 22, 2010 /s/ Sandra M. Snyder 

i0d3h8 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

2

Case 1:07-cv-01238-LJO -SMS Document 28 Filed 01/25/10 Page 2 of 2