From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Thorpe v. Hearn

United States District Court, Eastern District of California
Jun 3, 2022
2:19-cv-1974 KJM KJN P (E.D. Cal. Jun. 3, 2022)

Opinion

2:19-cv-1974 KJM KJN P

06-03-2022

RENELL THORPE, Plaintiff, v. C. HEARN, et al., Defendants.


ORDER

Plaintiff is a state prisoner, proceeding through counsel, with a civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. For the reasons stated herein, the September 27, 2022 jury trial is vacated.

On March 10, 2020, defendants filed a motion for partial summary judgment based on plaintiff's failure to exhaust administrative remedies. (ECF No. 31.)

On September 22, 2020, the magistrate judge granted defendants' motion to modify the scheduling order. (ECF No. 42.) The magistrate judge ordered that the court would reset the dispositive motion deadline following resolution of defendants' motion for partial summary judgment and the pending discovery disputes. (ECF No. 42.)

On April 2, 2021, the undersigned granted in part and denied in part defendants' motion for partial summary judgment. (ECF No. 59.) The undersigned also found appointment of counsel appropriate and referred this action to the pro bono panel to identify an appropriate attorney. (Id.) On October 14, 2021, the undersigned appointed counsel to represent plaintiff at a settlement conference. (ECF No. 62.)

On January 24, 2022, a settlement conference was conducted. (ECF No. 69.) This action did not settle.

On March 28, 2022, the magistrate judge denied defendants' motion to compel and plaintiff's motion to vacate defendants' motion to compel. (ECF No. 77.)

On March 30, 2022, the magistrate judge issued a further scheduling order setting this action for jury trial before the undersigned on September 27, 2022. (ECF No. 78.) On April 6, 2022, the undersigned appointed counsel, Robert Chalfant, to represent plaintiff at trial. (ECF No. 79.)

On May 18, 2022, defendants filed the pending motion for administrative relief. (ECF No. 81.) In this motion, defendants request leave to file a merits-based summary judgment motion, in accordance with the September 22, 2020 order granting their motion to modify the scheduling order. (Id.) In this motion, defendants state that they spoke with plaintiff's counsel and he takes no position on defendants' request to file a merits-based summary judgment motion. (Id.)

Good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. All dates set in the March 30, 2022 further scheduling order, including the September 27, 2022 jury trial, are vacated.

2. Defendants' motion for administrative relief (ECF No. 81) is granted.

3. Defendants shall file a merits-based summary judgment motion within thirty days of the date of this order.

4. The court clarifies that its order appointing Robert Chalfant as counsel to represent plaintiff (ECF No. 79) extends to the representation of plaintiff in opposing defendants' anticipated motion for summary judgment and in seeking any relief related to that motion.


Summaries of

Thorpe v. Hearn

United States District Court, Eastern District of California
Jun 3, 2022
2:19-cv-1974 KJM KJN P (E.D. Cal. Jun. 3, 2022)
Case details for

Thorpe v. Hearn

Case Details

Full title:RENELL THORPE, Plaintiff, v. C. HEARN, et al., Defendants.

Court:United States District Court, Eastern District of California

Date published: Jun 3, 2022

Citations

2:19-cv-1974 KJM KJN P (E.D. Cal. Jun. 3, 2022)