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.

Christopher Valles v. E. Greenman

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA


July 30, 2012

CHRISTOPHER VALLES,
PLAINTIFF,
v.
E. GREENMAN, ET AL.,
DEFENDANTS.

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

ORDER REGARDING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR CLARIFICATION (ECF No. 51)

Plaintiff Christopher Valles ("Plaintiff") is California state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action is proceeding against Defendant M. Barajas for deliberate indifference to a serious medical need in violation of the Eighth Amendment. On July 13, 2012, Plaintiff filed a motion regarding his lack of understanding of the law. On June 12, 2012, Plaintiff filed exhibits and interrogatories with the Court. Plaintiff attaches an exhibit to his July 13, 2012 motion, in which Defendant's counsel responded to Plaintiff's filing by informing Plaintiff that the interrogatories were discovery requests and had been untimely served. Thus, Defendant would not provide an answer.

If Plaintiff is requesting a modification of the Court's schedule to provide Plaintiff the opportunity to serve interrogatories on Defendant, Plaintiff's motion is denied. The decision to modify a scheduling order is within the broad discretion of the district court. Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 607 (9th Cir. 1992) (quoting Miller v. Safeco Title Ins. Co., 758 F.2d 364, 369 (9th Cir. 1985)). Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16, a pretrial scheduling order "shall not be modified except upon a showing of good cause," and leave of court. Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4); Zivkovic v. S. Cal. Edison Co., 302 F.3d 1080, 1087-88 (9th Cir. 2002). Although "the existence or degree of prejudice to the party opposing the modification might supply additional reasons to deny a motion, the focus of the inquiry is upon the moving party's reasons for seeking modification." Johnson, 975 F.2d at 609.

Plaintiff provides no good cause for modification. Plaintiff's motion is untimely, as the discovery cutoff date was November 7, 2011.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

20120730

© 1992-2012 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.