ORDER (1) REQUIRING DEFENDANTS TO COMPLY WITH COURT ORDER OR SHOW CAUSE WHY THEY SHOULD NOT BE HELD IN CONTEMPT (ECF No. 32) AND (2) GRANTING IN PART PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME (ECF No. 33)

CLERK OF COURT TO FAX COPY OF THIS ORDER AND ECF DOCUMENT No. 32 TO LITIGATION COORDINATOR. AT KERN VALLEY STATE PRISON

MICHAEL J. SENG, Magistrate Judge.

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1983. This action proceeds on Plaintiff's Eighth Amendment excessive force claim against Defendants Hernandez, Zambrano, Clark, Rodriguez, and Martin. (ECF Nos. 10, 16.)

On September 12, 2014, the Court issued a preliminary discovery and scheduling order requiring the parties to submit, by October 22, 2014, a completed form reflecting their respective preferences with regard to various expedited litigation options. A telephonic hearing to discuss the parties' preferences was set for November 6, 2014.

On October 20, 2014, Plaintiff filed a motion for a sixty day extension of time, stating that his copy of the Court's order had been destroyed or damaged while he was in the hospital. (ECF No. 33.) Plaintiff also states that he is right handed and has a medical issue that makes it difficult for him to write. Plaintiff asks that he be sent an additional copy of the Court's order. On October 22, 2014, Plaintiff filed a declaration essentially reiterating these requests. (ECF No. 34.)

Defendants have not responded to the Court's preliminary discovery and scheduling order, filed their preferences as ordered by the Court, or requested an extension of time to do so.

The purpose of the preliminary scheduling order and telephonic conference is to enable the parties and the Court to discuss various ways litigation of this case might be simplified and the case resolved more quickly. The parties were ordered to indicate their preferences simply by placing their initials next to the options listed. Responding does not require extensive writing or legal research.1 In light of the preliminary nature of the conference and its limited scope, a sixty days extension of time is not warranted. Indeed, such a lengthy extension would defeat the purpose of the conference, which is to expedite resolution of the case.

However, the November 6, 2014 conference likely will be unproductive given the lack of response from either party. Accordingly, the Court will move the conference to November 20, 2014. The Court directs the Clerk of the Court to send Plaintiff an additional copy of the Court's preliminary discovery and scheduling order (ECF No. 32), and also to fax same to the Litigation Coordinator at Plaintiff's institution. The Court requests that the Litigation Coordinator provide Plaintiff with a copy of the order. Plaintiff shall record his preferences on Attachment B of the order and file same with the Court on or before November 12, 2014. Defendants shall immediately, but in no event later than October 31, 2014, file a completed Attachment B completed or show cause why they should not be held in contempt for failing to obey the Court's prior order.

Based on the foregoing, the Court HEREBY ORDERS as follows:

IT IS SO ORDERED.