From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Priest v. Bentley

United States District Court, Eastern District of California
Aug 6, 2021
2:21-cv-0058 KJN P (E.D. Cal. Aug. 6, 2021)

Opinion

2:21-cv-0058 KJN P

08-06-2021

DAVID PRIEST, Plaintiff, v. BENTLEY, et al., Defendants.


ORDER

KENDALL J. NEWMAN, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.

Plaintiff is a state prisoner, proceeding without counsel, with a civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. For the reasons stated herein, plaintiff's motion for a one-year extension of time to conduct discovery (ECF No. 25) is denied.

On June 25, 2021, the undersigned granted defendants' motion to opt out of the Post Screening ADR Project. (ECF No. 24.) The undersigned granted defendants ninety days to file a responsive pleading. (Id.)

On August 2, 2021, plaintiff filed the pending motion for a one-year extension of time to conduct discovery. (ECF No. 25.) In this motion, plaintiff states that he needs one year to identify, locate and retrieve all documents related to his treatment, lack thereof, as well as any claimed defenses. (Id.)

The undersigned has not issued a discovery and scheduling order setting a discovery deadline. For this reason, plaintiff's motion for an extension of time to conduct discovery is denied as unnecessary. Once the discovery and scheduling order is filed, setting the discovery deadline, any request for an extension of time to conduct discovery must be supported by good cause.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiffs motion for an extension of time to conduct discovery (ECF No. 25) is denied. Dated: August 6, 2021


Summaries of

Priest v. Bentley

United States District Court, Eastern District of California
Aug 6, 2021
2:21-cv-0058 KJN P (E.D. Cal. Aug. 6, 2021)
Case details for

Priest v. Bentley

Case Details

Full title:DAVID PRIEST, Plaintiff, v. BENTLEY, et al., Defendants.

Court:United States District Court, Eastern District of California

Date published: Aug 6, 2021

Citations

2:21-cv-0058 KJN P (E.D. Cal. Aug. 6, 2021)