Opinion
1:21-cv-01150-JLT-EPG (PC)
10-27-2022
JAMES D. ALLEN, aka LLORD J.P. ALLEN, Plaintiff, v. RASHUAN Q. DEAN, Defendant.
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR DEFAULT JUGDMENT
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO VACATE AND RESET SCHEDULING ORDER
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF EXTENSION OF TIME TO COMPLY WITH ORDER REQUIRING PARTIES TO EXCHANGE DOCUMENTS
ORDER DIRECTING DEFENDANT TO SERVE PLAINTIFF WITH COPY OF ANSWER
(ECF NOS. 52 & 53)
James D. Allen (“Plaintiff') is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
On October 25, 2022, Plaintiff filed a motion for default judgment and a motion to vacate and reset the scheduling order. (ECF Nos. 53 & 52).
As to Plaintiff's motion for default judgment, Plaintiff asks the Court to enter default and default judgment because Defendant failed to file a responsive pleading in compliance with this Court's order, which required Defendant to file his responsive pleading within seven days of September 16, 2022 (ECF No. 45). Plaintiff also appears to ask the Court to sanction Defendant for failing to timely file his responsive pleading. This motion will be denied because Defendant filed his answer on September 22, 2022 (ECF No. 48), and thus complied with this Court's order. As it appears that Plaintiff did not receive a copy of the answer, the Court will direct Defendant to serve a copy of the answer on Plaintiff.
As to Plaintiff's motion to vacate and reset the scheduling order, Plaintiff asks the Court to “temporarily” vacate the scheduling order and the order requiring the parties to exchange documents until Plaintiff is released from Administrative Segregation (“Ad-Seg”). Plaintiff states that he has been retained in Ad-Seg since September 3, 2022. Plaintiff has been separated from his personal property, which contains relevant information and research materials. Additionally, he is not allowed to attend the law library or utilize ASU computers because they are broken, and research via inmate assistance or paging services via mail are insufficient. Plaintiff has been placed up for transfer, and is also appealing the conditions oppressed upon him, but he is unaware of how long the process will take.
The Court will deny Plaintiff's motion to vacate and reset the scheduling order. Plaintiff has not sufficiently shown that all deadlines in this case should be vacated. For example, Plaintiff has until February 17, 2023, to file motions to compel, and he has not explained why he will be unable to meet this deadline, which is over three months away.
However, the Court finds to good cause to extend Plaintiff's deadline to provide the documents required by the Court's order requiring parties to exchange documents. If Plaintiff is unable to meet this extended deadline, or any other deadline(s), Plaintiff may file a motion for an extension of time. If he does, he should identify the particular deadline(s) he needs extended and explain why he needs those particular deadlines extended.
The Court notes that its order regarding exchange of documents only applies to documents in the parties' possession, custody, or control. (ECF No. 47, p. 2). If Plaintiff does not have access to documents at this time, he does not need to produce them at this time. If he receives those documents at a later time, he must provide them within thirty days of receiving them.
Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that:
1. Plaintiff's motion for default judgment is denied;
2. Plaintiff's motion to vacate and reset the scheduling order is denied;
3. Plaintiff has sixty days from the date of service of this order to serve opposing counsel with the documents identified in the order requiring parties to exchange documents, to the extent he has them in his possession, custody, or control (ECF No. 47). If Plaintiff does not have access to documents at this time, he does not need to produce them at this time. If he receives those documents at a later time, he must provide them within thirty days of receiving them;
4. No other deadlines are extended at this time; and
5. Defendant is directed to serve Plaintiff with a copy of Defendant's answer(ECF No. 48).
IT IS SO ORDERED.