Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-00055/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-00055-14/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Archie Cranford
Plaintiff
Christina Crawford
Defendant

Document Text:

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

ARCHIE CRANFORD,

Plaintiff,

v.

CHRISTINA CRAWFORD, 

Defendant.

CASE NO. 1:14-cv-00055-AWI-MJS (PC)

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S 

MOTIONS TO STRIKE JURY DEMAND

(ECF Nos. 43 & 47) 

ORDER OVERRULING PLAINTIFF’S 

OBJECTION TO THIRD SCHEDULING 

ORDER

(ECF No. 61)

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION 

FOR A CAUSE OF ACTION WITHOUT 

PREJUDICE

(ECF No. 48)

ORDER DIRECTING THE CLERK OF 

COURT TO RESEND PLAINTIFF A COPY 

OF DISCOVERY AND SCHEDULING 

ORDER (ECF No. 21)

Plaintiff is a civil detainee proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil 

rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The action proceeds on Plaintiff’s First

Amended Complaint against Defendant Christina Crawford for inadequate medical care 

Case 1:14-cv-00055-AWI-MJS Document 64 Filed 06/03/16 Page 1 of 4
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

in violation of Plaintiff’s substantive Due Process rights. Before the Court are several 

motions filed by Plaintiff.

I. MOTIONS TO STRIKE JURY DEMAND

On March 21, 2016 and April 11, 2016, Plaintiff filed motions objecting to the 

Court’s scheduling of a jury trial in this suit and requesting the Court order a bench trial 

instead. (ECF Nos. 43 & 47.) The Court construes both of these filings as requests to 

strike Defendant’s demand for a jury trial,

Defendant is entitled to a trial by jury. U.S. Const. amend. VII; Fed. R. Civ. P. 38; 

City of Monterey v. Del Monte Dunes at Monterey, Ltd., 526 U.S. 687, 709 (1999) 

(holding a Section 1983 suit seeking legal relief is an action of law within the meaning of 

the Seventh Amendment and is therefore guaranteed the right to a trial by jury). 

Defendant made her demand for a jury trial on July 31, 2014. (ECF No. 19.) She has 

not consented to a bench trial. 

Thus both of Plaintiff’s motions will be denied. 

II. OBJECTION TO THIRD SCHEDULING ORDER

On May 9, 2016, the Court issued a third scheduling order setting a telephonic 

trial confirmation conference for September 20, 2016 and a jury trial for November 29, 

2016. On May 18, 2016, Plaintiff filed a motion objecting to the Court’s third scheduling 

order on that ground that Plaintiff had still not received responses to discovery he had 

propounded on Defendant. (ECF No. 61.)

Plaintiff filed a motion to compel responses to discovery requests on April 14, 

2016. (ECF No. 50.) On May 17, 2016, the Court issued an order denying Plaintiff’s 

motion on the grounds that the deadline for discovery had long since passed and 

Plaintiff had failed to show why he should be permitted to compel responses to discovery 

requests filed at such a late juncture. (ECF No. 60.) 

The issue of discovery has been resolved. Plaintiff’s objection to the third 

scheduling order will therefore be overruled. 

Case 1:14-cv-00055-AWI-MJS Document 64 Filed 06/03/16 Page 2 of 4
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

III. MOTION FOR CAUSE OF ACTION

On April 4, 2016, Plaintiff filed a motion entitled “First Cause of Action Premises 

Liability Attachment to Complaint.” (ECF No. 48.) This motion can be construed as an

attempt to amend the complaint and, as such, it will be denied. 

The deadline for amending pleadings passed on February 5, 2015. (ECF No. 21.) 

Under Rule 15, a party may amend his pleadings as a matter of course within twentyone days after serving it. Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(1)(A). All other amendments must be 

made with the consent of the opposing party or with the permission of the Court. Fed. R. 

Civ. P. 15(a)(2). Plaintiff may move to amend by filing a motion demonstrating that 

amendment is proper under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15 and lodging a copy of his 

proposed amended complaint with the Court. See Local Rule 137(c); cf. Johnson v. 

Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 608 (9th Cir. 1992). The motion presently 

before the Court meets neither of these requirements. Furthermore, an amended 

pleading must be complete in itself without reference to a prior or superseded pleading. 

Local Rule 220; Lacey v. Maricopa County, 693 F.3d 896, 907 n.1 (9th Cir. 2012) (en 

banc). Plaintiff may not simply add a cause of action to his complaint by filing it in a 

separate pleading.

Plaintiff did not request leave from the Court to amend his pleadings. He has not 

shown that he has received Defendant’s consent to amend. Finally, Plaintiff’s 

“attachment” to his complaint is not a pleading complete in and of itself and so would not 

constitute an amended pleading even if otherwise properly before the Court.. Plaintiff’s 

motion will therefore be denied.

IV. REQUEST TO RESEND DISCOVERY AND SCHEDULING ORDER

On April 4, 2016 and April 14, 2016, Plaintiff filed motions claiming he had not 

received ECF No. 21, the Court’s August 5, 2014 Discovery and Scheduling Order. 

(ECF Nos. 49 & 51.) The Clerk of Court will therefore be directed to resend ECF No. 21, 

Discovery and Scheduling Order, to Plaintiff.

Case 1:14-cv-00055-AWI-MJS Document 64 Filed 06/03/16 Page 3 of 4
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

4

Plaintiff states he received a document from Defendant indicating she would file a 

motion to compel discovery if Plaintiff did not produce certain documents. (ECF No. 

51.) Defendant has not filed a motion to compel, therefore the Court will not consider 

Plaintiff’s concerns about producing documents. 

Plaintiff further states that he had no knowledge of the deadline to complete 

discovery at the time he filed his additional discovery requests because he never 

received the Court’s Discovery and Scheduling Order. Regardless, Plaintiff still has not 

shown why he now requires additional discovery from Defendant. As stated above, the 

discovery issues have been resolved and the Court will consider no further requests by 

Plaintiff to compel discovery from Defendant absent a showing of good cause.

V. CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED

1. Plaintiff’s motions to strike Defendant’s jury demand (ECF Nos. 43 & 47) are 

DENIED;

2. Plaintiff’s objection to the Third Scheduling Order (ECF No. 61) is 

OVERRULED;

3. Plaintiff’s Motion for a Cause of Action (ECF No. 48) is DENIED without 

prejudice; and

4. The Clerk of Court is directed to send Plaintiff a copy of the Court’s August 5, 

2014 Discovery and Scheduling Order, filed as ECF No. 21.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 2, 2016 /s/Michael J. Seng 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:14-cv-00055-AWI-MJS Document 64 Filed 06/03/16 Page 4 of 4