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.

Huckabee v. Medical Staff at Csatf

United States District Court, E.D. California

November 16, 2017

ANTHONY CRAIG HUCKABEE, Plaintiff,
v.
MEDICAL STAFF AT CSATF, et al., Defendants.

          ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO MODIFY THE DISCOVERY AND SCHEDULING ORDER NUNC PRO TUNC (ECF NO. 230) ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART DEFENDANTS' REQUEST TO STAY DISCOVERY AND ALL DEADLINES IN THE COURT'S DISCOVERY AND SCHEDULING ORDER (ECF NO. 233)

          BARBARA A. MCAULIFFE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

         Plaintiff Anthony Craig Huckabee (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action proceeds on Plaintiff's fifth amended complaint against Defendants Wu, McGuinness, Enenmoh, Jeffreys, and Jimenez in their individual capacities for deliberate indifference to serious medical needs in violation of the Eighth Amendment. (ECF Nos. 195, 199.)

         I. Background

         On September 11, 2017, Plaintiff lodged a sixth amended complaint, and on September 25, 2017 filed a motion for leave to amend. (ECF Nos. 228, 231.) The Court denied the motion on November 7, 2017. (ECF No. 235.)

         During the pendency of Plaintiff's motion, Defendants filed a motion to modify the discovery and scheduling order, requesting a thirty-day extension of time to file an exhaustion motion. (ECF No. 230.) Plaintiff did not file a response or opposition, and the deadline to file a response has expired.

         Defendants also filed a request to stay discovery and all deadlines in the Court's discovery and scheduling order pending resolution of Plaintiff's motion to amend. (ECF No. 233.) Plaintiff has not yet filed a response, but the Court finds a response unnecessary. Defendants' motions are deemed submitted. Local Rule 230(1).

         II. Legal Standard

         Pursuant to Rule 16(b), a scheduling order “may be modified only for good cause and with the judge's consent.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 16(b)(4). The “good cause” standard “primarily considers the diligence of the party seeking the amendment.” Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 609 (9th Cir. 1992). The court may modify the scheduling order “if it cannot reasonably be met despite the diligence of the party seeking the extension.” Id. If the party was not diligent, the inquiry should end. Id.

         III. Discussion

         In the instant motions, Defendants argue that Plaintiff's fifth amended complaint added two new Defendants to this lawsuit, and an extension of thirty days is required to conduct additional discovery and evaluate an exhaustion defense on behalf of Defendants Enenmoh and Jimenez, and to file an exhaustion motion on behalf of Defendants Enenmoh, Jimenez, and Wu. Defendants assert that good cause exists because these Defendants are all represented by the same counsel, and a single motion for summary judgment can be filed, potentially narrowing the claims and Defendants at issue or resolving the lawsuit in its entirety. (ECF No. 230.)

         Defendants further argue that a stay of discovery and all outstanding deadlines pending resolution of Plaintiff's motion to amend is appropriate. Defendants assert that if the Court grants Plaintiff's motion to amend, any work completed in response to Plaintiff's pending discovery requests, defensive discovery, or drafting of motions will be rendered moot. If the motion is denied, Defendants request forty-five days from the date of an order adopting findings and recommendations to respond to Plaintiff's discovery requests, and that the Court reset the currently scheduled deadlines. (ECF No. 233.)

         Having considered Defendants' moving papers, the Court finds good cause for the brief continuance of the deadlines in this action. Defendants have been diligent in completing discovery and working on the dispositive motion, but the relevant deadline could not be met in light of the addition of defendants to the fifth amended complaint and Plaintiff's recently resolved motion to amend. The brief continuance will not result in measurable prejudice to Plaintiff in a matter that has been pending since 2009. As the Court has deny Plaintiff's motion to amend, a stay of discovery is no longer necessary, and shall be denied as moot.

         IV. ...


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.