ORDER DENYING WITH LEAVE TO AMEND PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL (Doc. 69)
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO REOPEN DISCOVERY FOR LIMITED PURPOSE
ORDER STRIKING DUPLICATIVE MOTIONS (Doc. 60; Doc. 67)
ORDER AMENDING DISCOVERY AND SCHEDULING ORDER
Amended Discovery Deadline (Limited): 11/05/2012 Amended Pretrial Dispositive Motion Deadline: 12/03/2012
Plaintiff Michael Andre Todd ("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 October 6, 2008. Doc. 1. The Court screened Plaintiff's original complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, and found that it stated cognizable claims against defendants: 1) Dill; 2) Keldgord; 3) Hedgpeth; and 4) Lopez ("Defendants") for deliberate indifference to Plaintiff's serious medical needs in violation of the Eighth Amendment. Docs. 13, 15, 16. Plaintiff gave notice to the Court of his willingness to proceed on the cognizable claims found in the original complaint. Doc. 14.
On December 14, 2011, the Court issued an amended scheduling order in which the deadline for discovery was April 2, 2012. Doc. 59. On April 18, 2012, Plaintiff's motion to compel was filed. Doc. 60. However, due to a prison handling error, it was metered on June 14, 2010, and submitted to the Court over a year later. Doc. 60. On April 23, 2010, Plaintiff filed a motion seeking to modify the scheduling deadline. Doc. 63. On May 2, 2010, Defendants file an opposition to Plaintiff's motion to compel and motion to modify the discovery deadline. Doc. 66. On May 23, 2012, Plaintiff resubmits an updated version of his previous motion to compel. Compare Doc. 60 with Doc. 69.
II. Motion to Reopen Discovery
Given Plaintiff's pro se status and that his motion to compel was delay through no fault of his own and since Defendants had been granted multiple extensions of time to submit their motion for summary judgment, in the interest of fairness the Court will grant Plaintiff's motion and will reopen discover for the limited purposes of addressing the remaining discovery motion. Doc. 63.
III. Motions to Compel dated April 18, 2012, and May 7, 2012
Plaintiff's original motion to compel dated June 14, 2010, was filed on April 18, 2012. Doc. 60. On May 23, 2012, Plaintiff resubmitted an updated substantively identical motion. Compare Doc. 60 with Doc. 69. Additionally, Plaintiff's motion to compel filed on May 7, 2012, (Doc. 67) is identical to Plaintiff's motion filed on May 23, 2012, (Doc. 69). Therefore, Plaintiff's motions to compel filed April 18, 2012 (Doc. 60) and May 7, 2012, are HEREBY STRICKEN as duplicative.
IV. Motion to Compel dated May ...