From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Buren v. Diaz

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Jun 28, 2013
CASE No. 1:13-cv-00516-MJS (PC) (E.D. Cal. Jun. 28, 2013)

Opinion

CASE No. 1:13-cv-00516-MJS (PC)

06-28-2013

IRVIN VAN BUREN, Plaintiff, v. RALPH M. DIAZ, et al., Defendants.


ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND

DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFF'S MOTION

FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE

AMENDED COMPLAINT AND FOR

DISCOVERY


(ECF No. 8)


AMENDED COMPLAINT DUE WITHIN

FORTY-FIVE DAYS

I. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

Plaintiff Irvin Van Buren is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action filed on April 10, 2013 pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (ECF No. 1.) The Complaint was dismissed for failure to state a claim, but Plaintiff was allowed leave to file an amended complaint by not later than June 26, 2013. (ECF No. 7.)

Pending before the Court is Plaintiff's Motion (ECF No. 8) seeking (1) a forty-five day extension of time to file a first amended complaint, and (2) to compel the medical department at his facility to produce a staff log identifying the nurse(s) who screened his medical complaint on April 9, 2012.

II. DISCUSSION

A. Extension of Time

"When an act may or must be done within a specified time, the court may, for good cause, extend the time . . . ." Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b)(1). The Court has wide discretion to extend time. Jenkins v. Commonwealth Land title Ins. Co., 95 F.3d 791, 795 (9th Cir. 1996). A party must demonstrate some justification for the issuance of the enlargement order. Ginett v. Federal Express Corp., 166 F.3d 1213 at 5* (6th Cir. 1998).

Plaintiff alleges he needs additional time to prepare his amended pleading because he has requested (through the CDCR Form 22 process), but not yet learned, the identity(ies) of clinic nurse(s) involved in the underlying incident. The Court finds good cause for the requested forty-five day extension of time to prepare and file an amended pleading.

B. Compel Discovery

"No discovery may be conducted without court permission until an answer is filed and the court issues the discovery order." (ECF No. 2 ¶ 8.)

Plaintiff requests an order compelling the medical department at his facility to produce a staffing log so he can identify nurse(s) involved in the underlying incident.

Plaintiff's request for discovery is premature and denied on that basis. This case remains in the screening phase. The Court has not yet authorized discovery.

However, this should not prevent Plaintiff from filing his amended pleaded within the time frame provided in this Order. Plaintiff's CDCR Form 22 request for the desired information is pending a response by the prison. He may, in the absence of such information, designate"doe" defendant(s) in his amended pleading.

III. ORDER

Accordingly, for the reasons stated, it is HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion (ECF No. 8) shall be:

1. GRANTED IN PART as to the requested extension of time such that a first amended complaint shall be due forty-five (45) days following service of this Order; and
2. DENIED IN PART without prejudice as to the request to compel discovery.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Michael J. Seng

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE


Summaries of

Buren v. Diaz

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Jun 28, 2013
CASE No. 1:13-cv-00516-MJS (PC) (E.D. Cal. Jun. 28, 2013)
Case details for

Buren v. Diaz

Case Details

Full title:IRVIN VAN BUREN, Plaintiff, v. RALPH M. DIAZ, et al., Defendants.

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Date published: Jun 28, 2013

Citations

CASE No. 1:13-cv-00516-MJS (PC) (E.D. Cal. Jun. 28, 2013)