Kuersten

(PC) Priest v. Kuersten

Good Law
United States District Court, Eastern District of CaliforniaMay 12, 20222:21-cv-00058California2,377 words

Opinion

Trial Court Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 DAVID PRIEST, No. 2: 21-cv-0058 TLN KJN P Plaintiff, v. ORDER BENTLEY, et al., Defendants. 16 Plaintiff is a state prisoner, proceeding without counsel, with a civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Pending before the court is plaintiff’s motion to reopen discovery. (ECF No. 46.) Also pending is plaintiff’s motion for appointment of counsel. (ECF No. 47.) For the reasons stated herein, plaintiff’s motions are denied. Motion to Reopen Discovery Legal Standard In considering whether to grant a motion to amend the scheduling order and re-open discovery, the court is to consider: 1) whether trial is imminent, 2) whether the request is opposed, 3) whether the non-moving party would be prejudiced, 4) whether the moving party was diligent in obtaining discovery within the guidelines established by the court, 5) the foreseeability of the need for additional…

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.