From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Campbell v. Tanton

United States District Court, Eastern District of California
Jun 29, 2022
2:18-cv-00671-KJM-CKD (E.D. Cal. Jun. 29, 2022)

Opinion

2:18-cv-00671-KJM-CKD

06-29-2022

SENARBLE CAMPBELL, Plaintiff, v. JOSHUA J. TANTON, et al., Defendants.


ORDER

CAROLYN K. DELANEY, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding through appointed counsel in this civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. After the non-expert discovery deadline had passed, plaintiff filed a motion to amend along with a motion to modify the amended discovery and scheduling order. ECF No. 133. Plaintiff submitted a proposed third amended complaint with the motion. ECF No. 133-2. Defendants filed an opposition and plaintiff filed a reply. ECF Nos. 134-135.

The court has reviewed the pleadings and the proposed third amended complaint. However, the court is unable to rule on the pending motion because the proposed amended complaint includes a claim against defendant Leech who is the subject of this court's Findings and Recommendations issued on October 19, 2021 that are still pending before the district court judge. ECF No. 118. If the court granted plaintiff leave to amend, it would not be able to screen the proposed third amended complaint in light of the current procedural posture of this case. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. Therefore, the court will deny plaintiff's motion to amend without prejudice to renewing it upon resolution of the pending Findings and Recommendations.

After the court bifurcated discovery on plaintiff's exhaustion of administrative remedies, plaintiff filed a motion to allow fact-based discovery to proceed before the court had ruled on defendants' motion for summary judgment. See ECF No. 89 (Limited Discovery and Scheduling Order), ECF No. 109 (Motion for Further Scheduling Order).

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff's motion to amend the amended complaint and to modify the scheduling order (ECF No. 133) is denied without prejudice to renewal after the October 19, 2021 Findings and Recommendations (ECF No. 118) are ruled upon by the district judge assigned to this case.

2. Plaintiff is advised that no undue delay or bad faith will be imputed so long as the motion to amend the complaint is renewed within 14 days of any ruling on the pending Findings and Recommendations and is limited to the state law medical negligence claim contained in the proposed third amended complaint.

3. All pending deadlines set by stipulation of the parties in the amended discovery and scheduling order of October 14, 2021 remain in effect.


Summaries of

Campbell v. Tanton

United States District Court, Eastern District of California
Jun 29, 2022
2:18-cv-00671-KJM-CKD (E.D. Cal. Jun. 29, 2022)
Case details for

Campbell v. Tanton

Case Details

Full title:SENARBLE CAMPBELL, Plaintiff, v. JOSHUA J. TANTON, et al., Defendants.

Court:United States District Court, Eastern District of California

Date published: Jun 29, 2022

Citations

2:18-cv-00671-KJM-CKD (E.D. Cal. Jun. 29, 2022)