IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
November 29, 2012
DARRYL HUBBARD, PLAINTIFF,
HOUGLAND, ET AL.,
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Allison Claire United States Magistrate Judge
MODIFIED DISCOVERY AND SCHEDULING ORDER
Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, seeks relief pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action is proceeding on plaintiff's complaint, filed June 10, 2011, naming defendants Smith, Clark, Goulding, and Thompson.*fn1 On July 10, 2012, a discovery and scheduling order issued setting November 2, 2012 as the discovery deadline and informing the parties that any motions necessary to compel discovery should be filed by that date. Doc. No. 32. The parties were also directed to file pretrial motions on or before January 25, 2013. Id. Pending before the court is plaintiff's motion to extend the discovery deadline.
See Doc. Nos. 41-42. Plaintiff seeks this continuance on the ground that his personal property was stored on or around August 5, 2012 in anticipation of his appearance at an unspecified court proceeding; the property was not returned to him until September 7, 2012. He also asserts that his recent release on parole has "cost" him 22 days. For these reasons, plaintiff asks that the discovery deadline be continued to January 25, 2013. Defendants have not filed an opposition or statement of non-opposition to plaintiff's request. Good cause appearing, plaintiff's motion will be granted.
Also pending before the court is plaintiff's request for leave to file documents using the court's CM/ECF system. The request states, in its entirety, the following: "Plaintiff is requesting permission to file on-line via the CM/ECF system." Although the Eastern District of California is an electronic management/filing district, unrepresented persons are required to file and serve paper documents unless the assigned Judge or Magistrate Judge grants leave to utilize electronic filing. Local Rule 133(a) & (b)(2). A request to use electronic filing as an exception to the rule may be made as a written motion setting out an explanation of reasons for the requested exception. Local Rule 133(b)(3). Here, plaintiff's request fails to provide any explanation whatsoever for the exception. Therefore, this request will be denied without prejudice to its renewal.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. The discovery deadline, currently expired, is hereby continued to January 25, 2013. Any motions necessary to compel discovery shall be filed by that date.
2. All pretrial motions, except motions to compel discovery, shall be filed on or before April 19, 2013. Motions shall be briefed in accordance with paragraph 8 of this court's order filed April 9, 2012.
3. Pretrial conference and trial dates will be set, as appropriate, following adjudication of any dispositive motion, or the expiration of time for filing such a motion.
4. Plaintiff's October 22, 2012 motion for electronic filing is denied without prejudice.