Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Eichler v. Tilton

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA


February 23, 2009

DWAYNE EICHLER, PLAINTIFF,
v.
TILTON, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Craig M. Kellison United States Magistrate Judge

ORDER

Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, brings this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This matter proceeds on plaintiff's amended complaint (Doc. 47). Defendants Duckett, Morris, Nessenson, Stogsdill, Sturges, Tilton and Williams filed an answer (Doc. 57) on March 5, 2008. Defendants Woodford, Hickman, Terhune, Gomez, Tristan and Ling filed a motion to dismiss (Doc. 69) on July 2, 2008, which the undersigned as recommended be denied.

Discovery in this case was opened on May 8, 2007, and currently remains open. The original scheduling order was vacated on August 27, 2007, as the parties required additional time to complete discovery. In addition, plaintiff's amended complaint necessitated the service of additional defendants, who have appeared (by way of a motion to dismiss) but have not yet answered. The court needs to set a further schedule for this litigation. As several defendants are fairly new to this action, the court recognizes that additional time to conduct discovery may be necessary.

Therefore, by this order, the court will require the parties to each submit to the court and serve by mail on all other parties a report on the status of this case. The report must address the following:

1. The current status of this case;

2. Whether additional discovery is necessary and, if so, the nature and scope of the discovery and the time needed in which to complete it;

3. Whether a pretrial motion is contemplated and, if so, the type of motion and the time needed to file the motion and complete the time schedule set forth in Local Rule 78-230(m); and

4. Any other matter which the party desires to call to the attention of the court.

The parties are warned that failure to file a status report which addresses the issues set forth above may result in the imposition of appropriate sanctions, including dismissal of the action or preclusion of issues or witnesses.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 1. Plaintiff's status report shall be filed and served within 30 days from the date of service of this order; and

2. Defendants' status report shall be filed within 30 days after service of plaintiff's status report.

20090223

© 1992-2009 VersusLaw Inc.



Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.