Tabor

(PC) Dao v. Tabor

Good Law
United States District Court, Eastern District of CaliforniaNovember 29, 20232:22-cv-00846California1,046 words

Opinion

Trial Court Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 CUONG HUY DAO, No. 2: 22-cv-0846 TLN KJN P Plaintiff, v. ORDER P. TABOR, 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 are plaintiff’s motions to extend the discovery deadline and to compel. (ECF Nos. 46, 52.) For the reasons stated herein, plaintiff’s motions are denied. Motion to Extend the Discovery Deadline (ECF No. 46) Legal Standard Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure (“Rule”) 16, the Court is required to issue a scheduling order as soon as practicable, and the order “must limit the time to join other parties, amend the pleadings, complete discovery, and file motions.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(3)(A). Once a scheduling order has been filed pursuant to Rule 16, the “schedule may be modified only for good cause and with the judge’s consent.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4). //// …

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.