IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
August 19, 2009
DAVID W. WILSON, PLAINTIFF,
SUZAN HUBBARD, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Gregory G. Hollows United States Magistrate Judge
Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Pending before the court is defendants' August 14, 2009, motion to modify the scheduling order. For the following reasons, the motion to modify the scheduling order is denied as unnecessary.
Pursuant to the November 20, 2008, scheduling order, the dispositive motion cutoff date is September 11, 2009. On August 3, 2009, defendants filed a motion to dismiss pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). On August 14, 2009, defendants filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings.
In the motion to modify the scheduling order, defendants request that the deadline for filing pretrial motions be extended until thirty days after a ruling on their motion to dismiss and motion for judgment on the pleadings. Defendants confusingly state that their pretrial statement is due while their dispositive motions are pending.
It appears that defendants mistakenly believe that the September 11, 2009, deadline is when their pretrial statement is due. The scheduling order states that all pretrial motions are due on or before September 11, 2009. The court has set no date for the filing of pretrial statements. See Scheduling Order, p. 2. For that reason, the motion to modify the scheduling order is denied as unnecessary. However, the court will not reopen the time for filing dispositive motions after the court resolves defendants' motions. In other words, if defendants' motions are denied, the court will not re-set the motion filing deadline so that defendants may file a summary judgment motion.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that defendants' August 14, 2009, motion to modify the scheduling order (no. 54) is denied as unnecessary.
© 1992-2009 VersusLaw Inc.