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.

Bryan E. Ransom v. A. K. Scribner

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA


February 1, 2011

BRYAN E. RANSOM,
PLAINTIFF,
v.
A. K. SCRIBNER, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.

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

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR FURTHER DISCOVERY ORDER REQUIRING PLAINTIFF TO FILE OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT WITHIN THIRTY (30) DAYS

(DOC. 70)

Plaintiff Bryan E. Ransom ("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. This action is proceeding on Plaintiff's complaint against Defendants Duncan and Scribner. On October 14, 2010, Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment. Doc. 66. Currently pending before the Court is Plaintiff's motion requesting that Defendants' motion be denied or continued until Plaintiff completes further discovery, filed on December 6, 2010. *fn1 Doc. 70. Defendants filed their opposition on December 10, 2010. Doc. 78. Plaintiff filed his reply on December 30, 2010. Doc. 79. The matter is submitted pursuant to Local Rule 230(l).

Plaintiff contends that he cannot present facts essential to his opposition unless he is permitted to take discovery. However, the Court by separate order denied Plaintiff's motion for modification of the scheduling order regarding discovery. Plaintiff did not demonstrate good cause for modification of the scheduling order. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4); September 14, 2010 Order, Doc. 62; September 29, 2010 Order Denying Reconsideration, Doc. 64.

Plaintiff had ample opportunity to take discovery in this action, but did not do so in compliance with the Court's scheduling order. Plaintiff also failed to seek modification of the scheduling order before the discovery cut-off date was reached. The Court does not find good cause to permit Plaintiff to conduct additional discovery in this action. The Court will require Plaintiff to file an opposition. *fn2

Accordingly, Plaintiff's motion for deferring consideration of Defendants' motion for summary judgment, filed December 6, 2010, is DENIED. Plaintiff is ORDERED to file an opposition to Defendants' motion for summary judgment within thirty (30) days from the date of service of this order. If Plaintiff fails to file a timely opposition, the Court will construe such failure as a waiver of opposition and may recommend dismissal of this action for failure to obey a court order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

3b142a


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.