Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

K'NAPP v. ADAMS, 1:06-cv-01701-LJO-GSA-PC. (2014)

Court: District Court, E.D. California Number: infdco20140509744 Visitors: 8
Filed: May 08, 2014
Latest Update: May 08, 2014
Summary: ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST FOR CLARIFICATION OF DEADLINE (Doc. 127.) ORDER EXTENDING DEADLINES ESTABLISHED IN COURT'S ORDER OF MARCH 11, 2014 (Doc. 123.) THIRTY DAY DEADLINE FOR PLAINTIFF TO SERVE NEW REQUESTS FOR ADMISSIONS GARY S. AUSTIN, Magistrate Judge. I. BACKGROUND Eric Charles Rodney K'napp ("Plaintiff") is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with this civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1983. Plaintiff filed the Complaint commencing this action on November 22,
More

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST FOR CLARIFICATION OF DEADLINE (Doc. 127.)

ORDER EXTENDING DEADLINES ESTABLISHED IN COURT'S ORDER OF MARCH 11, 2014 (Doc. 123.)

THIRTY DAY DEADLINE FOR PLAINTIFF TO SERVE NEW REQUESTS FOR ADMISSIONS

GARY S. AUSTIN, Magistrate Judge.

I. BACKGROUND

Eric Charles Rodney K'napp ("Plaintiff") is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with this civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff filed the Complaint commencing this action on November 22, 2006. (Doc. 1.) This action now proceeds on the Second Amended Complaint filed by Plaintiff on November 13, 2008, against defendants Warden Derral G. Adams, Lieutenant ("Lt.") E. Smith, Lt. J. T. Tucker, Associate Warden S. Sherman, and D. Selvy (Classification Services Representative), for retaliating against Plaintiff by confining him in Ad-Seg under false pretenses and transferring him to another prison, and against defendants K. Motty, Sgt. C. Pugliese, Lt. Smith, R. Guerrero, Appeals Coordinator Cooper, Appeals Coordinator V. R. Garcia, Appeals Coordinator R. Hall, and Does 1-5 (Mailroom Workers) for interfering with his right to send mail in violation of the First Amendment.1 (Doc. 16.)

On May 1, 2014, Plaintiff filed a request for the court to clarify the deadline for Plaintiff to serve new Requests for Admissions upon Defendants, pursuant to the court's order of March 11, 2014. Plaintiff seeks an extension of the deadline because of the passage of time while Plaintiff's motion for reconsideration of the March 11, 2014 order, and motion for disqualification of the Magistrate Judge were being resolved.

Good cause appearing, Plaintiff's request shall be granted, and the deadlines established in the court's order of March 11, 2014 shall be extended.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff's request for clarification of the deadline for Plaintiff to serve new Requests for Admissions, pursuant to the court's order of March 11, 2014, is GRANTED; 2. Plaintiff is granted thirty days from the date of service of this order in which to serve new Requests for Admissions upon Defendants, as instructed by the March 11, 2014 order; 3. The deadline for the completion of discovery, including filing of motions to compel, is extended from June 30, 2014 to August 15, 2014, for all parties to this action; and 4. The deadline for filing and serving pretrial dispositive motions is extended from August 29, 2014 to October 15, 2014, for all parties to this action.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

FootNotes


1. On March 12, 2012, Plaintiff's claims for retaliation based on allegations that defendants (1) denied him indigent correspondence supplies, (2) delayed his mail, (3) obstructed his outgoing mail, (4) denied him all but the May 2005 issue of his subscription of Prison Legal News, (5) issued a false disciplinary write-up against Plaintiff for having a clothesline inside his cell, and (6) instructed CDCR personnel at SATF to limit Plaintiff to a sixty-minute non-contact visit with a visitor who had come over 250 miles to see him, were dismissed by the Court based on Plaintiff's failure to exhaust remedies before filing suit. (Doc. 88.) The Court also dismissed defendants Meaders, Cuevas, and Johnson from this action, based on Plaintiff's failure to exhaust remedies for the claims against them before filing suit. (Id.) All other claims and defendants, other than those listed above, were dismissed from this action by the Court on August 17, 2009, based on Plaintiff's failure to state a claim. (Doc. 29.)
Source:  Leagle

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer