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.

Armentero v. Willis

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


February 19, 2010

LUIS LORENZO ARMENTERO, PLAINTIFF,
v.
S. WILLIS, DEFENDANT.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Gregory G. Hollows United States Magistrate Judge

ORDER

Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, seeks relief pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. In two separate filings, plaintiff has complained of his transfer to Avenal State Prison, which he believes is a retaliatory action for his having filed grievances and a lawsuit. Plaintiff's primary concern is that the transfer has apparently interfered with his ability to propound discovery because he was transferred on December 23, 2009, as he was starting to prepare his interrogatories. Plaintiff does not explain how discovery propounded at that point would have been timely as the Discovery and Scheduling Order, filed on October 23, 2009, setting February 19, 2010, as the discovery deadline plainly stated: "[a]ll requests for discovery pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 31, 33, 34 or 36 shall be served not later than sixty days prior to that date." Therefore, plaintiff is unlikely to have been able to timely serve his discovery requests even without having been transferred and separated from his property. In his second filing, it appears that plaintiff is stating that he has been reunited with his property as of January 16, 2010. Plaintiff also claims that he has not been permitted appropriate access to the Avenal State Prison library to make the necessary copies of his discovery requests. Plaintiff is informed, however, that it is only necessary to serve his discovery requests upon the defendant, and not to file them in court, until and unless they become at issue.

Despite the fact that plaintiff is unlikely to have been timely served even without having been transferred, the court will consider his circumstances sufficient cause to vacate the discovery deadline from the October 23, 2009 (docket # 20), Discovery and Scheduling Order. The court will also move the pretrial dispositive motion deadline in order to accommodate the extended discovery deadline. No further extension of time will be considered.

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that:

1. In light of plaintiff's filings on January 6, 2010 (docket # 23) and on February 8, 2010 (# 24), the dates for the discovery cut-off and the deadline for the filing of pretrial motions are hereby VACATED from the October 23, 2009 (docket # 20), Discovery and Scheduling Order;

2. The new extended discovery deadline is re-set to be June 16, 2010;

3. The deadline for filing pretrial motions is now extended and re-set to be November 17, 2010; and

4. There will be no further extensions of time.

20100219

© 1992-2010 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.