Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Jewett v. California Forensic Medical Group, Inc.

United States District Court, E.D. California

June 22, 2016

EVERETT JEWETT, et al., Plaintiff,
v.
CALIFORNIA FORENSIC MEDCIAL GROUP, INC., et al., Defendants.

          ORDER

          ALLISON CLAIRE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

         Plaintiff Everett Jewett is a former Shasta County Jail inmate[1] proceeding through counsel and in forma pauperis with an action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

         Procedural Background

         On April 2, 2014, plaintiff filed a fourth amended complaint in pro se, naming the Shasta County Sheriff’s Department, California Forensic Medical Group, Dr. Jeremy Austin, Mary Barns, and James Roemech as defendants. ECF No. 17. On September 24, 2014, the court found that the fourth amended complaint stated cognizable claims for relief against defendants for violations of Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), 42 U.S.C. § 1201, et seq. based on defendants’ alleged failure to accommodate plaintiff’s physical disabilities and plaintiff’s alleged exclusion from programs and services at the Shasta County Jail because of plaintiff’s disabilities. ECF No. 21.

         On November 17, 2014, defendants Austin, Barns, Roemech, and California Forensic Medical Group answered the complaint. ECF No. 27. On November 21, 2014, the court issued a discovery scheduling order setting forth the deadlines for discovery and the filing of pretrial motions. ECF No. 30. Defendant Shasta County Sheriff’s Department answered the complaint on December 17, 2014. ECF No. 31.

         The parties proceeded to conduct discovery. On March 2, 2015, defendant Shasta County Sheriff’s Department filed a motion to extend the cut-off dates for discovery and the filing of pre-trial motions by 180 days, ECF No. 40, which the court granted, ECF No. 42.

         On May 14, 2015, counsel for plaintiff filed a notice of appearance. ECF No. 45.

         On August 25, 2015, the parties filed a stipulation and joint request to extend the discovery deadline to March 15, 2016 and the pretrial motion deadline to June 15, 2016. ECF No. 49. The court granted the parties’ request and amended the discovery and pretrial motion deadlines in accordance with the stipulation. ECF No. 50. On January 4, 2016, the parties filed a stipulation and petition to enter into a protective order regarding confidential discovery material. ECF No. 52. The court approved the stipulated protective order on January 11, 2016. ECF No. 53.

         On March 14, 2016, the parties filed a stipulation and joint request to vacate the discovery and motion deadlines, citing the need for additional time to conduct discovery and plaintiff’s intention to file an amended complaint prepared by counsel. ECF No. 55. The court granted the parties’ request, and plaintiff was granted sixty days to file an amended complaint. ECF No. 56. On May 16, 2016, the parties filed a stipulation and joint request to extend the deadline for the filing of plaintiff’s amended complaint. ECF No. 60. The district judge granted the parties’ request on May 17, 2016. ECF No. 61.

         On May 25, 2016, the parties filed a joint stipulation and proposed order granting plaintiff leave to file a fifth amended complaint. ECF No. 62. On June 2, 2016, the district judge granted plaintiff leave to file a fifth amended complaint. ECF No. 63. Plaintiff’s fifth amended complaint was filed on June 2, 2016. ECF No. 65.

         Fifth Amended Complaint

          The fifth amended complaint differs from the fourth amended complaint in the following respects:

• Dr. Jeremy Austin, Mary Barns, and James Roemech have been removed as defendants;
• Shasta County; Shasta County Sheriff Tom Bosenko, named solely in his official capacity in the injunctive relief claims only; and Does 1 through 25 have ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.