(PC) Martinez v. Peterson ( 2024 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 FRED FELEKI MARTINEZ, Case No. 2:21-cv-01779-DAD-JDP (PC) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER 13 v. MODIFYING SCHEDULING ORDER, EXTENDING DISCOVERY, AND DENYING 14 PETERSON, PLAINTIFF’S MOTIONS TO COMPEL AS UNNECESSARY 15 Defendant. ECF Nos. 50, 56, 58, & 66 16 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 17 THAT PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO AMEND 18 THE COMPLAINT BE DENIED AND DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY 19 JUDGMENT BE DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO REFILING 20 ECF Nos. 51 & 55 21 OBJECTIONS DUE WITHIN FOURTEEN 22 DAYS 23 24 Plaintiff brought this action in September 2021, ECF No. 1, and I issued a scheduling 25 order after screening the case, ECF No. 28. That order provided that discovery, including any 26 motions to compel, was to be completed by April 14, 2023. ECF No. 28 at 4-5. The schedule 27 also provided that any motion to amend the complaint must be submitted by that date. Id. at 5. 28 Plaintiff did not file any motion to compel or to amend his complaint by that date. Then, on 1 October 5, 2023, approximately two weeks before defendants filed their motion for summary 2 judgment, ECF No. 51, plaintiff filed his first motion to compel. ECF No. 50. Thereafter, he 3 filed an additional two motions to compel and a motion “to name Doe defendant,” which I 4 interpret to be a motion to amend complaint. ECF Nos. 55, 56, & 58. Defendant has opposed all 5 of plaintiff’s motions, arguing that plaintiff was not diligent in conducting discovery or in moving 6 to amend his complaint. ECF Nos. 53, 61-63. 7 Defendant is broadly correct that plaintiff’s motions are late and that he has not shown 8 diligence in complying with the case’s schedule. To excuse the lateness of his motions, plaintiff 9 argues that serious mental health issues, including an attempted suicide, precluded his timely 10 action. ECF No. 56 at 2-3. Accepting as true plaintiff’s claims about the gravity of his mental 11 health issues, and accounting for his disadvantaged position as a pro se prisoner litigant, I will 12 modify the scheduling order to allow him a short window in which to propound interrogatories 13 and requests for production. Any interrogatories and requests for production must be served on 14 defendant within thirty days of this order’s entry. Any motions to compel must be filed within 15 seventy-five days of this order’s entry. In light of this modification, I will deny the pending 16 motions to compel as unnecessary. 17 I will also, however, recommend that plaintiff’s motions to amend be denied. ECF Nos. 18 55 & 67. As I noted above, we are well past the deadline for amendment and, while I am willing 19 to afford plaintiff a limited window for discovery due to his mental health struggles, allowing him 20 to amend his complaint threatens to set this action, which was filed on September 29, 2021, back 21 yet further. Plaintiff has also failed to comply with the local rules, which require him to provide a 22 copy of his proposed amended complaint with his motion. Under Local Rule 137(c), a motion to 23 amend a complaint must be accompanied by the proposed complaint as an exhibit. “When a party 24 fails to comply with Local Rule 137(c), the party’s request should be denied.” Herrera v. Cal. 25 Highway Patrol, No. 1:15-CV-01882-TLN-SAB, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 20822, *4 (E.D. Cal. 26 Feb. 14, 2017). The failure to attach a proposed complaints to his motions to amend precludes an 27 adequate analysis of how much leave to amend would prejudice defendant and whether any new 28 claims would be futile. 1 2 In light of the extension of time to conduct discovery, I will recommend that defendant’s 3 pending motion for summary judgment be denied without prejudice to refiling at the amended 4 close of discovery. 5 Accordingly, it is ORDERED that: 6 1. The scheduling order is modified with respect to discovery. The parties shall have 7 thirty additional days from the date of this order to propound additional discovery. Any motions 8 to compel discovery must be filed within seventy-five days of this order’s entry. These deadlines 9 will not be extended. 10 2. Plaintiff’s motions to compel, ECF Nos. 56, 58, & 66 are DENIED. 11 Further, it is RECOMMENDED that: 12 1. Plaintiff’s motion to name Doe defendant, construed as a motion to amend complaint, 13 ECF No. 55, and his motion to amend, ECF No. 67, be DENIED. 14 2. Defendant’s motion for summary judgment, ECF No. 51, be DENIED without 15 prejudice to refiling at the new close of discovery. 16 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 17 assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen days 18 after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written 19 objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned 20 “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Any response to the 21 objections shall be served and filed within fourteen days after service of the objections. The 22 parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to 23 appeal the District Court’s order. Turner v. Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 (9th Cir. 1998); Martinez 24 v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 25 26 27 28 1 | 1718 SO ORDERED. 3 ( — Dated: __March 11,2024 Jess Vote 4 JEREMY D. PETERSON ; UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 7 8 9 10 ul 12 13 14 15 16 7 18 19 20 21 29 23 24 25 26 27 28