(PC) Wolinski v. Abdulgader ( 2024 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 KRZYSZTOF F. WOLINSKI, No. 2:21-cv-02078-DJC-CKD 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 ABDULBASET ABDULGADER, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights 18 action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Currently pending before the court are defendants’ 19 second motion to compel discovery responses from plaintiff (ECF No. 65) and a motion to further 20 modify the court’s scheduling order (ECF No. 64). The court will address each motion in turn. 21 By order dated June 3, 2024, the court granted defendants’ motion to compel and required 22 plaintiff to serve his responses to defendants’ Interrogatories, Set One, and Request for 23 Production of Documents, Set One, within 30 days. ECF No. 61. In the same order, the court 24 modified the Discovery and Scheduling Order by resetting the discovery deadline to August 1, 25 2024 and the dispositive motions deadline to November 1, 2024. ECF No. 61 at 4-5. 26 On July 12, 2024, defendants filed their second motion to compel after plaintiff failed to 27 respond to their interrogatories at all and served them with an unexplained 300 pages of medical 28 records in response to their request discovery requests. ECF No. 65. 1 After the second motion to compel was filed, plaintiff submitted a motion for a 30 day 2 extension of time along with a notice of his change in address.1 ECF No. 66. The motion is a 3 generic request for an extension of time, and it does not indicate whether plaintiff actually intends 4 to use the additional time to respond to defendants’ discovery requests.2 ECF No. 66. The 5 request for an extension, filed in July 2024, indicates that plaintiff does not have access to his 6 typewriter because it was confiscated by prison officials. ECF No. 66. However, since that time, 7 plaintiff has filed a typed pleading in a different case pending in this court. See Wolinski v. J. 8 Lewis, et al., No. 2:17-cv-00583-MCE-AC (E.D. Cal.), at ECF No. 110 (Plaintiff’s Motion for 9 Reconsideration).3 Based on good cause shown, the court will grant plaintiff one final 10 opportunity to comply with the court’s June 3, 2024 order by serving his responses to 11 defendants’ Interrogatories, Set One, and Request for Production of Documents, Set One, within 12 21 days from the date of this order. The court will not grant plaintiff any additional extensions of 13 time to comply with his discovery obligations. 14 In light of this extension of time, the court will deny defendants’ second motion to compel 15 as moot. If plaintiff does not file his responses to both defendants’ Interrogatories, Set One, and 16 their Request for Production of Documents, Set One, within the time provided by this order, 17 defendants may file a motion for sanctions no later than October 30, 2024. 18 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 19 1. Plaintiff’s motion for an extension of time (ECF No. 66) is granted. No further 20 extensions of time will be granted. 21 1 The certificate of service on the motion for an extension of time indicates that it was submitted to prison officials for mailing just two days after defendants filed their second motion to compel. 22 Plaintiff’s motion was received and docketed five days later on July 19, 2024. Due to delays in 23 both sending and receiving mail while in prison, plaintiff most likely had not received his copy of defendants’ second motion to compel by the time he submitted his request for an extension of 24 time. 2 The court notes that this is plaintiff’s ninth motion for an extension of time filed in this case. 25 Despite being granted numerous extensions, he has not filed a single response to any of defendants’ motions. Instead, he is marching to the tune of his own drummer and filing 26 repetitious motions for miscellaneous forms of relief from the court without actually addressing 27 the merits of his § 1983 complaint. See ECF Nos. 32, 39, 41, 60, 62-63. 3 A court may take judicial notice of its own court records in other cases. See United States v. 28 Wilson, 631 F.2d 118, 119 (9th Cir. 1980). ] 2. Plaintiff shall comply with this court’s June 3, 2024 order by serving his responses 2 | to defendants’ Interrogatories, Set One, and Request for Production of Documents, Set One, 3 | within 21 days from the date of this order. 4 3. Defendants’ second motion to compel (ECF No. 65) is denied as moot in light of the 5 || extension of time granted by the court to respond to defendants’ discovery requests. 6 4. If plaintiff fails to respond to either or both of defendants’ discovery requests within 7 || the time provided by this order, defendants may file a motion for sanctions no later than October 8 | 30, 2024. 9 5. Defendants’ motion to modify the scheduling order governing this case (ECF No. 64) 10 || is granted. All pending deadlines set by prior orders are hereby vacated and will be reset as 11 || necessary by subsequent order of the court. 12 | Dated: September 11, 2024 / ae / a Ly a 13 CAROLYN K DELANEY 14 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 15 16 17 18 19 20 || 12/voli2078.m2compel(2) 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28