Peacock v. Horowitz

Full title: RICHARD PEACOCK, Plaintiff, v. HOROWITZ, Defendants.

Court: United States District Court, Ninth Circuit, California, E.D. California

Date published: Sep 29, 2015

2:13-cv-2506 TLN AC P (E.D. Cal. Sep. 29, 2015)

Opinion

RICHARD PEACOCK, Plaintiff, v. HOROWITZ, Defendants. No. 2:13-cv-2506 TLN AC P United States District Court, E.D. California. September 29, 2015

          ORDER

          ALLISON CLAIRE, Magistrate Judge.

         Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Currently before the court is defendant's motion to compel and to modify the scheduling order (ECF No. 31) which defendant now partially withdraws (ECF No. 35).

         Defendant sought (1) to compel plaintiff to complete his deposition, (2) to modify the scheduling order to allow for the completion of plaintiff's deposition after the close of discovery, and (3) to extend the time for filing dispositive motions. ECF No. 31. The motion to modify the scheduling order was previously granted and the dispositive motion deadline was vacated with new deadlines to complete plaintiff's deposition and file dispositive motions to be set upon resolution of the motion to compel. ECF No. 33. Defendant now withdraws her motion to compel and for sanctions because plaintiff agreed to and did complete his deposition. ECF No. 35. Defendant requests sixty days to file a dispositive motion. Id.

         Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that discovery is closed and the dispositive motion deadline is re-set. The parties shall have sixty days from the filing of this order to file dispositive motions.