United States District Court, E.D. California
ORDER (1) DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR SUBPOENA DUCES TECUM (ECF
NO. 56); (2) DEEMING FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT (ECF NO. 11) AMENDED TO SUBSTITUTE
E. ONWUBUYA IN PLACE OF DEDEE AS DEFENDANT; (3) DIRECTING CLERK'S OFFICE TO
AMEND COURT RECORDS TO REFLECT SUBSTITUTION; (4) DENYING PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST FOR
EXTENSION OF TIME TO AMEND THE COURT'S DISCOVERY AND SCHEDULING ORDER (ECF NO.
64); (3) DENYING PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST TO MODIFY THE DISCOVERY AND SCHEDULING
ORDER (ECF NO. 70); AND (4) DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR SUBPOENA (ECF NO. 71)
MICHAEL J. SENG, Magistrate Judge.
I. PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (ECF No. 1.) This action proceeds against Defendants Ryan and Dedee on Plaintiff's Eighth Amendment inadequate medical care claim, and against Defendants Dutra and Auten on Plaintiff's Eighth Amendment excessive force claim. (ECF Nos. 12, 13.)
On October 26, 2012, this Court ordered the United States Marshal to serve Plaintiff's amended complaint on Defendants. (ECF No. 17.) Defendants Ryan, Auten, and Dutra waived service and answered the complaint. (ECF No. 24, 42, 47). However, service as to Defendant Dedee was twice returned unexecuted. (ECF No. 21, 32.)
On October 4, 2013, the Court issued a discovery and scheduling order, setting the deadline to amend pleadings as April 4, 2014, the discovery cut-off date as June 4, 2014, and the dispositive motion deadline as August 14, 2014. (ECF No. 46.)
On October 10, 2013, the Court ordered Plaintiff to show cause why Defendant Dedee should not be dismissed. (ECF No. 48.) Plaintiff responded to the Court's order (ECF No. 51), but the Court concluded that Plaintiff had not shown good cause and issued findings and a recommendation that Defendant Dedee be dismissed (ECF No. 63).
On December 13, 2013, Plaintiff filed a motion for a subpoena duces tecum, seeking to obtain the full name and address of Defendant Dedee. (ECF No. 56.) Defendants Dutra, Ryan, and Auten opposed the motion, but noted that the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation ("CDCR") had recently identified Defendant Dedee's "true" name as E. Onwubuya. (ECF No. 57.) Plaintiff filed a reply, in which he also asked the Court to amend Defendant Dedee's name to "E. Onwubuya." (ECF No. 60.)
On April 3, 2014, Plaintiff filed a request to amend the discovery and scheduling order, seeking to extend the deadline to amend pleadings to correct Defendant Dedee's name. (ECF No. 64.) Defendants filed an opposition. (ECF No. 67.) Plaintiff did not file a reply.
Thereafter, the court discharged the order to show cause and directed Defendants Auten, Ryan and Dutra to provide the United States Marshal with Defendant Dedee's correct name and contact information. (ECF No. 68.) Defendants complied (ECF No. 69), and on June 24, 2014, the Marshal again was ordered to serve Defendant Dedee. (ECF No. 74.) Service is still pending.
Meanwhile, on June 2, 2014, Plaintiff filed a motion to modify the discovery and scheduling order to extend the discovery cut-off. (ECF No. 70.) Defendants opposed the motion. (ECF No. 72.) Plaintiff filed a reply. (ECF No. 77.)
Additionally, on June 13, 2014, Plaintiff filed a motion for subpoena. (ECF No. 71.) Defendants opposed the motion (ECF No. 76), and Plaintiff filed a reply (ECF No. 80).
The following motions filed by Plaintiff are ready for decision: (1) December 13, 2013 motion for subpoena (ECF No. 56); (2) April 3, 2014 motion to extend the time to amend pleadings (ECF No. 64); (3) June 2, 2014 motion to extend the discovery cut-off ...