Opinion
3:12-cv-00328-LRH-WGC
05-01-2013
CHARLES JUAN PROCTOR, Plaintiff, v. DR. VAN HORN, et al., Defendants
COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF(S): NONE APPEARING COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT(S): NONE APPEARING
MINUTES OF THE COURT
PRESENT: THE HONORABLE WILLIAM G. COBB, U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE DEPUTY CLERK: KATIE LYNN OGDEN REPORTER: NONE APPEARING COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF(S): NONE APPEARING COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT(S): NONE APPEARING
MINUTE ORDER IN CHAMBERS:
Plaintiff's "Motion for Postponement of this Civil Complaint Until April 1, 2014." (Doc. # 20), is essentially a motion to stay proceedings. Plaintiff states he has been ordered to be returned to California for re-sentencing relative to a California criminal conviction (id. at 2, 8). According to Plaintiff, this may occur sometime within the next 180 days (id. at 3). Plaintiff requests the pending matter be "postponed" (i.e., stayed) until April 1, 2014.
The court does not see the necessity to stay this case for what would be close to one year. The present case is still in its infancy. The defendants who have been served have yet to appear herein. (Doc. # 21 at 2.) Accordingly, no scheduling order has been entered and as such, there is yet no deadline for completion of discovery.
It may very well be that discovery, when it is eventually authorized herein, can be completed in this matter before Plaintiff is transported to California. However, if Plaintiff is returned to California and if his detention there causes complications to either Plaintiff or Defendants on completing discovery, either Plaintiff or Defendants can request a reasonable extension (as noted above, no scheduling order has yet been entered). If Plaintiff's detention hampers Plaintiff's ability to either pursue or respond to a motion, Plaintiff can request appropriate relief at that time. Plaintiff is reminded of his obligation to keep the court advised of any change in his mailing address.
Plaintiff's motion (Doc. # 20) is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
LANCE S. WILSON, CLERK
By:_______________________
Deputy Clerk