Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_17-cv-03567/USCOURTS-cand-3_17-cv-03567-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Z. Ahmed
Defendant
Donald Schumaker
Plaintiff

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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DONALD SCHUMAKER,

Plaintiff,

v.

Z. AHMED,

Defendant.

Case No. 17-cv-03567-EMC 

SCHEDULING ORDER

Docket Nos. 30, 35, 36, 38

This pro se prisoner’s civil rights action recently was reassigned to the undersigned when 

one of the parties declined to proceed before a magistrate judge. 

Plaintiff’s request for an extension of the deadline to file an opposition to Defendant’s 

motion for summary judgment is GRANTED. Docket Nos. 35, 36. The Court now sets the 

following new briefing schedule: Plaintiff must file and serve his opposition to the motion for 

summary judgment no later than October 26, 2018. Defendant must file and serve his reply, if 

any, no later than November 9, 2018. 

Plaintiff’s request for the status of his requests for an extension of the deadline is 

GRANTED. Docket No. 38. The status is that this order grants the requested extension.

Plaintiff’s request for an order compelling Defendant to file an answer is DENIED. 

Docket No. 30. A defendants “may waive the right to reply to any action brought by a 

prisoner . . . under section 1983 of this title or any other Federal law.” 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(g)(1). 

Defendant has filed a waiver of the right to reply (Docket No. 28), which was a permissible 

response under § 1997e(g)(1) to Plaintiff’s complaint. Although “the court may require any 

defendant to reply to a complaint brought under this section if it finds that the plaintiff has a 

reasonable opportunity to prevail on the merits,” 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(g)(2), the Court declines to do 

Case 3:17-cv-03567-EMC Document 42 Filed 09/18/18 Page 1 of 2
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

so at this time. If the case gets beyond the summary judgment stage and moves closer to trial, if 

there will be a trial, the Court will on its own motion consider ordering Defendant to file an 

answer to the complaint. 

Plaintiff has requested the Court to set a discovery schedule. The request is DENIED as 

unnecessary. Docket No. 30. The “Order On Review Of Complaint; And Directing Plaintiff To 

File Proof Of Service Or Show Cause” gave the parties permission to take discovery. Docket No. 

19 at 6 (¶ 4). Plaintiff has been able to take discovery since that order issued in January, and no 

further order is needed. 

Finally, the Court notes that Plaintiff attached some already-filed documents to his request 

for a status report. Docket No. 38. Plaintiff is now informed that it is unnecessary to attach copies 

of documents that have already been filed in this action. Instead of attaching a copy of the 

already-filed document, he should simply describe that document, e.g., by stating the document’s 

title and date of filing or by referring to the Document number electronically printed at the top of 

filed documents. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 18, 2018

______________________________________

EDWARD M. CHEN

United States District Judge

Case 3:17-cv-03567-EMC Document 42 Filed 09/18/18 Page 2 of 2