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.

Trinidad Gomez v. Pena

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA


December 6, 2010

TRINIDAD GOMEZ,
PLAINTIFF,
v.
PENA, ET AL.,
DEFENDANTS.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Dennis L. United States Magistrate Judge

ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR COPY ORDER DENYING SECOND MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME (DOC. 28) F COURT DOCUMENTS 28 AND 29 (DOC. 29)

Plaintiff Trinidad Gomez ("Plaintiff") is a prisoner in the custody of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation ("CDCR"). Plaintiff is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On April 22, 2010, Plaintiff filed a second motion for extension of time as to the discovery cut-off date. Doc. 28. Plaintiff also requests a copy of his motions as he was unable to make photocopies at the law library and was forced to send original copies to the Court. Doc. 29.

Plaintiff is again seeking to modify the Court's discovery and scheduling order, which set a deadline of January 5, 2010 as the discovery cut-off date. The Court had granted in part Plaintiff's previous motion to modify the scheduling order, which was filed February 26, 2010. The Court modified the dispositive motion deadline of March 3, 2010 to May 5, 2010. However, Plaintiff's motion was denied as to a modification of the discovery cut-off date. Good cause is required in order to modify a scheduling order. Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4). Plaintiff failed to present good cause as to why he failed to seek modification of the discovery cut-off date until after the deadline had elapsed. The Court again finds no good cause for modification of the discovery cut-off date. Plaintiff's request for modification was untimely.

As Plaintiff sent his original copies of his motions to the Court, the Court will direct the Clerk's Office to return Plaintiff's original copies. If the Clerk's Office no longer possesses the original copies, the Clerk's Office shall instead send Plaintiff copies of his motions. The Court finds no need to forward a copy of the motions to the Attorney General's office.

Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff's second motion for extension of time, filed April 22, 2010, is DENIED;

2. Plaintiff's motion requesting copies of his motion, filed April 22, 2010, is GRANTED as stated herein;

3. The Clerk of Court is directed to send Plaintiff the original copy of his April 22, 2010 motions, filed at docket number 28 and 29. If the original copy no longer exists, the Clerk of Court is directed to send Plaintiff copies of his motions.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Beck 77e0d6

20101206

© 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.