Haddad

(PC) Casey v. Haddad

Good Law
United States District Court, Eastern District of CaliforniaApril 22, 20251:21-cv-00855California2,002 words

Opinion

trial_court Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 DOMINIQUE ZAFIR CASEY, Case No. 1:21-cv-00855-KES-SKO (PC)

12 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND

DENYING IN PART DEFENDANTS’

13 v. UNOPPOSED MOTION TO COMPEL AND

REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS

14 HADDAD, et al., (Doc. 64) 15 Defendants.

16 17 Plaintiff Dominique Zafir Casey is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights 18 action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action proceeds on Plaintiff’s constitutional 19 claims against Defendants Castro, Fernandez, and Haddad. 20 I. INTRODUCTION 21 The Court issued its Discovery and Scheduling Order on September 18, 2024. (Doc. 60.) 22 On February 14, 2025, the Court granted Defendants’ motion to modify the discovery order. 23 (Doc. 63.) Specifically, the deadline for completing discovery, including the filing of any motion 24 to compel, was extended to March 20, 2025, and the dispositive motion filing deadline was 25 extended to May 21, 2025. (Id. at 2.) 26 On March 20, 2025,…

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.