SCHEDULING ORDER Docket Nos. 30, 35, 36, 38.

EDWARD M. CHEN, District Judge.

This pro se prisoner's civil rights action recently was reassigned to the undersigned when one of the parties declined to proceed before a magistrate judge.

Plaintiff's request for an extension of the deadline to file an opposition to Defendant's motion for summary judgment is GRANTED. Docket Nos. 35, 36. The Court now sets the following new briefing schedule: Plaintiff must file and serve his opposition to the motion for summary judgment no later than October 26, 2018. Defendant must file and serve his reply, if any, no later than November 9, 2018.

Plaintiff's request for the status of his requests for an extension of the deadline is GRANTED. Docket No. 38. The status is that this order grants the requested extension.

Plaintiff's request for an order compelling Defendant to file an answer is DENIED. Docket No. 30. A defendants "may waive the right to reply to any action brought by a prisoner . . . under section 1983 of this title or any other Federal law." 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(g)(1). Defendant has filed a waiver of the right to reply (Docket No. 28), which was a permissible response under § 1997e(g)(1) to Plaintiff's complaint. Although "the court may require any defendant to reply to a complaint brought under this section if it finds that the plaintiff has a reasonable opportunity to prevail on the merits," 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(g)(2), the Court declines to do so at this time. If the case gets beyond the summary judgment stage and moves closer to trial, if there will be a trial, the Court will on its own motion consider ordering Defendant to file an answer to the complaint.

Plaintiff has requested the Court to set a discovery schedule. The request is DENIED as unnecessary. Docket No. 30. The "Order On Review Of Complaint; And Directing Plaintiff To File Proof Of Service Or Show Cause" gave the parties permission to take discovery. Docket No. 19 at 6 (¶ 4). Plaintiff has been able to take discovery since that order issued in January, and no further order is needed.

Finally, the Court notes that Plaintiff attached some already-filed documents to his request for a status report. Docket No. 38. Plaintiff is now informed that it is unnecessary to attach copies of documents that have already been filed in this action. Instead of attaching a copy of the already-filed document, he should simply describe that document, e.g., by stating the document's title and date of filing or by referring to the Document number electronically printed at the top of filed documents.

IT IS SO ORDERED.