(PC) Leonard v. Hill ( 2022 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 FREDERICK LEONARD, No. 2:21-cv-0930 KJN P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE AND ORDER MODIFYING SCHEDULING ORDER 14 M. STRAND, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff is a former state prisoner, proceeding pro se. On June 13, 2022, defendants filed 18 a motion to compel discovery responses, and a request to modify the scheduling order in light of 19 plaintiff’s failure to respond to discovery. Pursuant to Local Rule 230(l), plaintiff was required to 20 oppose defendants’ motion within twenty-one days. No opposition was filed. As set forth below, 21 plaintiff is ordered to show cause why defendants’ motion to compel discovery should not be 22 granted, and defendants’ motion to modify the scheduling order is granted. 23 On June 13, 2022, plaintiff filed a notice of change of address reflecting his release from 24 state prison. Plaintiff is advised that he is still required to prosecute his pending court actions. 25 Moreover, plaintiff is cautioned that he is required to cooperate in discovery. Failure to cooperate 26 in discovery may result in the imposition of sanctions, including, but not limited to, a 27 recommendation that this action be dismissed. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(b)(2)(A) (sanctions may be 28 imposed for failure to comply with a discovery order); Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(d)(3) (sanctions may be 1 | imposed for failure to serve answers to interrogatories or to respond to request for production of 2 | documents). Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37 permits the court to impose sanctions -- 3 || including dismissal -- on a party that fails to attend a properly-noticed deposition. Fed. R. Civ. P. 4 | 37(d). Therefore, plaintiff is ordered to show cause, within twenty-one days, why defendants’ 5 || motion to compel discovery should not be granted. Plaintiff is cautioned that failure to respond 6 || may result in a recommendation that this action be dismissed based on plaintiffs failure to 7 || prosecute this action. Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). 8 Defendants have demonstrated good cause for extending the discovery and pretrial 9 | motions deadlines in this case. Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 609 10 | (1992). Defendants’ motion to modify is granted. The discovery deadline is continued to 11 || October 3, 2022. The pretrial motions deadline is continued to December 12, 2022. In all other 12 || respects, the February 4, 2022 scheduling order remains in effect. 13 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 14 1. Within twenty-one days from the date of this order, plaintiff shall show cause why 15 || defendants’ motion to compel discovery (ECF No. 28) should not be granted, and shall file an 16 || opposition to the motion; 17 2. Defendants’ motion to modify the scheduling order (ECF No. 28) is granted; and 18 3. The discovery deadline is extended to October 3, 2022; the pretrial motions deadline is 19 || continued to December 12, 2022. In all other respects, the February 4, 2022 scheduling order 20 || remains in effect. 21 | Dated: July 15, 2022 ” Aectl Aharon 23 KENDALL J. NE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 24 fleon0930.0sc 25 26 27 28