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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

NORMAN TIMOTHY GREGORY,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-04-0764 FCD DAD P

vs.

D. RAMEREZ, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

By order filed January 23, 2006, the court granted defendants Foat, Zaniroli, and

Ramerez a thirty-one day extension of time from January 20, 2006, to February 20, 2006, to file a

motion for summary judgment. Defendants did not file either a motion for summary judgment or

a timely request for a second extension of time on or before February 20, 2006.

On February 21, 2006, defendants filed a request, docketed as #38, for a second

extension of time to file and serve a dispositive motion. This request erroneously reflects that

counsel represents four defendants in this case and also states in error that dispositive motions

were to be filed by February 21, 2006. The request was accompanied by a proposed order,

docketed as #39, erroneously referring to defendants’ second request for “an extension of time to

file their responses to plaintiff’s Complaint.” On the same date, defendants filed a second

proposed order, #40, that appears to be identical to #39. On February 22, 2006, defendants filed

Case 2:04-cv-00764-FCD-DAD Document 42 Filed 04/24/06 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

2

a document titled “Corrected/Amended Defendants’ Second Request for Extension of Time to

File and Serve Dispositive Motion,” #41, deleting reference to the phantom fourth defendant. 

All four documents request an extension of time to March 20, 2006. Defendants did not file a

motion for summary judgment on or before March 20, 2006, and did not request an extension of

time beyond March 20, 2006. The request for an extension of time to March 20, 2006, will be

denied as moot.

In light of the confusion caused by defendants’ filings, the court will continue the

pretrial conference for two weeks and adjust the due dates for the parties’ pretrial statements

accordingly. The date set for jury trial will remain unchanged. Any further request for leave to

file a dispositive motion must be made by motion for leave to act out of time, with the proposed

dispositive motion attached as an exhibit.

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Discovery in this action closed on November 18, 2005, and pretrial law and

motion practice, as extended by order filed January 23, 2006, closed on February 20, 2006.

2. Defendants’ requests filed February 21, 2006, and February 22, 2006, for a

second extension of time to file and serve a dispositive motion are denied as moot.

3. Pretrial conference, as described in Local Rule 16-282 and the court’s

scheduling order filed July 5, 2005, is continued from May 19, 2006, to June 2, 2006. The

pretrial conference shall be conducted on the file only, without appearance by either party.

4. Plaintiff shall file and serve his pretrial statement, along with any motions

necessary to obtain the attendance of incarcerated witnesses at trial, on or before May 12, 2006. 

Defendants shall file their pretrial statement on or before May 26, 2006. The parties are advised

that failure to file a timely pretrial statement may result in the imposition of sanctions, including

dismissal of this action.

/////

/////

Case 2:04-cv-00764-FCD-DAD Document 42 Filed 04/24/06 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

3

5. Except as set forth in this order, the scheduling order filed July 5, 2005,

remains in effect.

DATED: April 21, 2006.

DAD:13

greg0764.schedomod

Case 2:04-cv-00764-FCD-DAD Document 42 Filed 04/24/06 Page 3 of 3