1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 GREGORY GOODS, Case No. 2:20-cv-00416-DAD-JDP (PC) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S AND

DEFENDANTS’ MOTIONS TO MODIFY

13 v. THE SCHEDULING ORDER 14 CARLSON, et al., ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION

TO COMPEL AND MOTION FOR AN

15 Defendants. EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE AN

AMENDED COMPLAINT

16 ECF Nos. 67, 68, 73, & 77 17 18 Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding without counsel under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He 19 alleges that another inmate stabbed him in the face with a pen and that defendants Carlson, Illa, 20 Lim, and Soltanian violated his Eighth Amendment rights by failing to treat his resulting injury. 21 Several motions are currently pending before the court. 22 On February 3, 2022, I issued a discovery and scheduling order, which ordered that any 23 motion seeking leave to amend the complaint must be filed, and all discovery must be completed, 24 by July 22, 2022. ECF No. 52 at 5-6. Subsequently, plaintiff moved to amend the complaint; 25 defendants did not oppose this motion. ECF No. 58. Accordingly, on September 23, 2022, I 26 granted plaintiff’s motion and ordered him to file a second amended complaint within thirty days. 27 ECF No. 66. In that same order, I granted plaintiff’s and defendants’ motions to modify the 28 scheduling order. I extended the deadline to complete discovery to October 21, 2022, and the 1 deadline to file dispositive motions to January 19, 2023. Id. That same day, plaintiff filed two 2 motions; the first requests a ninety-day extension to complete discovery and seeks service 3 information about defendant R. Illa, ECF No. 67, and the other seeks to compel discovery 4 responses from defendant Soltanian, ECF No. 68. 5 As for plaintiff’s first motion, I find that there is good cause to grant the requested 6 extension. Accordingly, the deadline to complete discovery is extended to May 22, 2023. 7 However, plaintiff’s request for service-related information about defendant Illa—also sought in 8 the first motion—may present more difficult issues. Since the start of this case, plaintiff has had 9 trouble serving defendant Illa. These difficulties may have resulted in some part from a spelling 10 issue: defendant’s last name is spelled Ilya, not Illa. In an earlier order, I informed plaintiff that 11 process directed at Illa had been returned as unserved because: “As of 11/17/2021, Robert Ilya 12 (Illa) has not worked for ATC Healthcare & Folsom State Prison as of 5/5/2017. ATC Healthcare 13 does not have any information about his whereabouts.” ECF No. 50. In that same order, I told 14 plaintiff that he must provide information about how to locate that defendant Illa, whether it be 15 through discovery, the California Public Records Act, Calif. Gov’t. Code §§ 6250, et seq., or 16 other means. I also told him that if access to the required information is denied or unreasonably 17 delayed, he may seek judicial intervention. Id. Because plaintiff is amending his complaint, I 18 will not address service issues until I have screened the amended complaint and determined 19 whether service is appropriate for defendant Illa. 20 As for plaintiff’s motion to compel, he argues that defendant Soltanian failed to cooperate 21 in the discovery process. ECF No. 68. Defendant Soltanian filed an opposition to plaintiff’s 22 motion, in which he acknowledges that he objected to each of plaintiff’s discovery requests as 23 “untimely” but states that he is willing to supplement his responses in light of the court’s prior 24 order extending the discovery deadline. ECF No. 70 at 2. Accordingly, plaintiff’s motion to 25 compel discovery is granted and defendant Soltanian is directed to respond to plaintiff’s 26 discovery request within thirty days of this order. 27 Plaintiff has additionally filed an unopposed motion for an extension of time to file his 28 amended complaint. ECF No. 73, 76, & 78. Good cause appearing, that motion is granted; 1 plaintiff shall file his second amended complaint within thirty days of issuance of this order. 2 Plaintiff is warned that his amended complaint may only include claims that are related to those 3 contained in his original complaint; unrelated claims against multiple defendants belong in 4 separate suits. He is also reminded that the amended complaint will supersede the current 5 complaint. See Lacey v. Maricopa Cnty., 693 F. 3d 896, 907 n.1 (9th Cir. 2012) (en banc). 6 Plaintiff’s amended complaint must be complete on its face without reference to the prior 7 pleading. See E.D. Cal. L.R. 220. 8 Finally, defendants filed a motion to vacate the dispositive motion deadline and reset it to 9 at least sixty days after screening of plaintiff’s second amended complaint. ECF Nos. 77 & 79 10 (defendant Soltanian’s joinder of that motion). Good cause appearing, that motion is granted, and 11 the dispositive motions deadline is extended to July 7, 2023. 12 Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that: 13 1. Plaintiff’s motion to extend the discovery deadline, ECF No. 67, is granted. 14 2. The deadline for completing discovery, including filing all motions to compel 15 discovery, is extended to May 22, 2023. 16 3. Plaintiff’s motion to compel discovery, ECF No. 68, is granted. 17 4. Defendant Soltanian is directed to supplement his responses to plaintiff’s discovery 18 request within thirty days of issuance of this order. 19 5. Plaintiff’s motion for an extension of time to file an amended complaint, ECF No. 73, 20 is granted. 21 6. Plaintiff shall file his amended complaint within thirty days of issuance of this order. 22 Plaintiff is warned that absent extraordinary circumstances, no further extensions will be granted. 23 7. Defendants’ motion to extend the dispositive motion deadline, ECF No. 77, is granted. 24 8. The deadline for filing dispositive motions is extended to July 7, 2023.

25 26 27 28 1 > IT IS SO ORDERED. 3 ( | { Wine Dated: _ February 22, 2023 Q_——_. 4 JEREMY D. PETERSON 5 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28