Manning

(PC) Fuentes v. Manning

Good Law
United States District Court, Eastern District of CaliforniaDecember 30, 20242:23-cv-00386California765 words

Opinion

Trial Court Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 DAVID FUENTES, No. 2:23-0386 CSK P Plaintiff, v. ORDER MR. MANNING, et al., Defendants. 16 Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se. On December 23, 2024, defendants filed a motion for a forty-five day extension of time to file their motion for summary judgment. (ECF No. 39.) This is defendants’ third motion to modify the Discovery and Scheduling Order, but their first motion to extend the pretrial motions deadline and is based on plaintiff’s alleged refusal to comply with his discovery obligations. As discussed below, defendants’ motion to modify is granted. However, the pretrial motions deadline is vacated rather than extended pending resolution of defendants’ motion to compel discovery. I. BACKGROUND This action proceeds on plaintiff’s second amended complaint against defendants Mr. Manning and Ms. Kissel for their alleged failure to protect plaintiff from harm in violation of the Eighth…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.