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.

Monte Haney v. Darrel G. Adams

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA


December 20, 2011

MONTE HANEY,
PLAINTIFF,
v.
DARREL G. ADAMS, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.

ORDER PURSUANT TO RULE 60(a) AMENDING ORDER FILED ON NOVEMBER 10, 2011 (Doc. 74)

ORDER DENYING AS UNTIMELY PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL (Doc. 74)

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S AMENDED MOTION TO COMPEL (Doc. 77)

ORDER DENYING AS UNTIMELY PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR AMENDED SCHEDULING ORDER (Doc. 76)

I. Procedural History

Plaintiff Monte Haney ("Plaintiff") is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff filed this action on July 5, 2007. Doc. 1. This action is proceeding on Plaintiff's first amended complaint filed on July 16, 2008, for: 1) excessive force on December 14, 2006, in violation of the Eighth Amendment by defendants J.G. Oaks and D. Silva; 2) deprivation of outdoor exercise from December 15, 2006 to March 15, 2007, in violation of the Eighth Amendment by defendants R. Botello, M. Rickman, F. Oliver, G. Torres, T. Cano; and 3) deprivation of outdoor exercise of African-American inmates in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment equal protection clause by defendants R. Botello, M. Rickman, F. Oliver, G. Torres, T. Cano. Doc. 22; Doc. 28; Doc. 32.

On August 19, 2010, the Court issued a discovery and scheduling order in which the deadline to file discovery motions was on April 19, 2011. Doc. 36. On September 12, 2011, Plaintiff filed a motion to compel. Doc. 71. On November 10, 2011, the Court denied Plaintiff's motion to compel and gave Plaintiff thirty days to file an amended motion to compel. Doc. 74. On December 1, 2011, Plaintiff filed a motion to amend the discovery scheduling order (Doc. 76) and filed an amended motion to compel (Doc. 77). On December 15, 2011, Plaintiff filed an opposition. Doc. 79.

II. Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Filed September 12, 2011

On August 19, 2010, the Court issued a discovery and scheduling order in which the deadline to file discovery motions was on April 19, 2011. Doc. 36. On September 12, 2011, Plaintiff filed a motion to compel. Doc. 71. On November 10, 2011, the Court denied Plaintiff's motion to compel and gave Plaintiff thirty days to file an amended motion to compel. Doc. 74. Since Plaintiff's original motion to compel filed on September 12, 2011, was untimely, the Court will amend it's order filed on November 10, 2011,*fn1 which gave Plaintiff the opportunity to file an amended motion to compel. The Court's order filed November 10, 2011, is amended to deny Plaintiff's motion to compel with prejudice based on being untimely and is amended to not allow Plaintiff to file an amended motion to compel.

III. Plaintiff's Amended Motion to Compel Filed December 1, 2011

Given that the Court erred in granting Plaintiff leave to file an amended motion to compel since Plaintiff's original motion was untimely, the Court denies Plaintiff's amended motion to compel filed December 1, 2011, as untimely and moot.

IV. Plaintiff Motion to Amend the Scheduling Order Filed on August 19, 2010

On August 19, 2010, the Court issued a discovery and scheduling order in which the deadline to file discovery motions was on April 19, 2011. Doc. 36. On December 1, 2011, Plaintiff filed a motion to amend the discovery scheduling order. Doc. 76. In its scheduling order, the Court emphasized that "[a] request for an extension of a deadline set in this order must be filed on or before the expiration of the deadline in question; and [e]xtensions of time will only be granted on a showing of good cause." Doc. 36 at 2. As Plaintiff's motion to extend the deadlines in the scheduling order is over seven months beyond the expiration of the discovery deadline, Plaintiff's motion to amend the scheduling order is denied. Doc. 76.

V. Conclusion and Order

For the above reasons, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Court's order filed on November 10, 2011, is amended to deny with prejudice Plaintiff's motion to compel filed September 12, 2011 (Doc. 74; Doc. 71);

2. Plaintiff's motion to compel filed December 1, 2011, is denied as untimely and moot (Doc. 77); and

3. Plaintiff motion to amend scheduling order is denied as untimely. Doc. 76.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE


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.