(PC) Murray v. Harrington ( 2022 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 PAUL MURRAY, No. 2:21-cv-01936-EFB (PC) 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 HARRINGTON, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding without counsel in an action brought under 42 18 U.S.C. § 1983. For the third time, he moves to extend the deadline for the close of discovery and 19 for the filing of dispositive motions as established by the court’s discovery and scheduling order. 20 See ECF No. 27. Plaintiff requests another 60-day extension of time because of limitations 21 imposed by yet another modified program resulting from Covid-19 outbreak quarantine 22 procedures at his prison. Id. Defendants did not respond to plaintiff’s request. 23 Good cause appearing, plaintiff’s motion (ECF No. 27) is GRANTED and the discovery 24 and scheduling order is MODIFIED as follows: 25 1. The parties may conduct discovery until March 31, 2023. Any motions necessary to 26 compel discovery shall be filed by that date. All requests for discovery pursuant to 27 Fed. R. Civ. P. 31, 33, 34, or 36 shall be served not later than January 27, 2023. 28 ///// ] 2. If plaintiff seeks leave to amend the complaint, he must file any motion to amend no 2 later than March 31, 2023.! 3 3. Dispositive motions shall be filed on or before June 30, 2023. 4 4. The court is not inclined to further extend these deadlines. 5 So ordered. 6 || Dated: November 29, 2022. Sb lea heb bien EDMUND F. BRENNAN 7 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 8 9 10 1] 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 | —___ ' Any motion to amend must be accompanied by a proposed amended complaint that is 25 | rewritten or retyped so that it is complete in itself without reference to any earlier filed complaint. 26 || L-R. 220. This is because an amended complaint supersedes any earlier filed complaint, and once an amended complaint is filed, the earlier filed complaint no longer serves any function in the 27 || case. See Forsyth v. Humana, 114 F.3d 1467, 1474 (9th Cir. 1997) (the “‘amended complaint supersedes the original, the latter being treated thereafter as non-existent.’”) (quoting Loux v. 28 | Rhay, 375 F.2d 55, 57 (9th Cir. 1967)).