(PC) Martinez v. Peterson

Opinion

FRED FELEKI MARTINEZ, Case No. 2:21-cv-01779-DAD-JDP (PC) Plaintiff, ORDER v. MODIFYING SCHEDULING ORDER, EXTENDING DISCOVERY, AND DENYING PETERSON, PLAINTIFF’S MOTIONS TO COMPEL AS UNNECESSARY Defendant. ECF Nos. 50, 56, 58, & 66 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS THAT PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO AMEND THE COMPLAINT BE DENIED AND DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT BE DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO REFILING ECF Nos. 51 & 55 OBJECTIONS DUE WITHIN FOURTEEN Plaintiff brought this action in September 2021, ECF No. 1, and I issued a scheduling order after screening the case, ECF No. 28. That order provided that discovery, including any motions to compel, was to be completed by April 14, 2023. ECF No. 28 at 4-5. The schedule also provided that any motion to amend the complaint must be submitted by that date. Id. at 5. Plaintiff did not file any motion to compel or to amend his complaint by that date. Then, on October 5, 2023, approximately two weeks before defendants filed their motion for summary judgment, ECF No. 51, plaintiff filed his first motion to compel. ECF No. 50. Thereafter, he filed an additional two motions to compel and a motion “to name Doe defendant,” which I interpret to be a motion to amend complaint. ECF Nos. 55, 56, & 58. Defendant has opposed all of plaintiff’s motions, arguing that plaintiff was not diligent in conducting discovery or in moving to amend his complaint. ECF Nos. 53, 61-63. Defendant is broadly correct that plaintiff’s motions are late and that he has not shown diligence in complying with the case’s schedule. To excuse the lateness of his motions, plaintiff argues that serious mental health issues, including an attempted suicide, precluded his timely action. ECF No. 56 at 2-3. Accepting as true plaintiff’s claims about the gravity of his mental health issues, and accounting for his disadvantaged position as a pro se prisoner litigant, I will modify the scheduling order to allow him a short window in which to propound interrogatories and requests for production. Any interrogatories and requests for production must be served on defendant within thirty days of this order’s entry. Any motions to compel must be filed within seventy-five days of this order’s entry. In light of this modification, I will deny the pending motions to compel as unnecessary. I will also, however, recommend that plaintiff’s motions to amend be denied. ECF Nos. 55 & 67. As I noted above, we are well past the deadline for amendment and, while I am willing to afford plaintiff a limited window for discovery due to his mental health struggles, allowing him to amend his complaint threatens to set this action, which was filed on September 29, 2021, back yet further. Plaintiff has also failed to comply with the local rules, which require him to provide a copy of his proposed amended complaint with his motion. Under Local Rule 137(c), a motion to amend a complaint must be accompanied by the proposed complaint as an exhibit. “When a party fails to comply with Local Rule 137(c), the party’s request should be denied.” Herrera v. Cal. Highway Patrol, No. 1:15-CV-01882-TLN-SAB, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 20822, *4 (E.D. Cal. Feb. 14, 2017). The failure to attach a proposed complaints to his motions to amend precludes an adequate analysis of how much leave to amend would prejudice defendant and whether any new claims would be futile. In light of the extension of time to conduct discovery, I will recommend that defendant’s pending motion for summary judgment be denied without prejudice to refiling at the amended close of discovery. Accordingly, it is ORDERED that: 1. The scheduling order is modified with respect to discovery. The parties shall have thirty additional days from the date of this order to propound additional discovery. Any motions to compel discovery must be filed within seventy-five days of this order’s entry. These deadlines will not be extended. 2. Plaintiff’s motions to compel, ECF Nos. 56, 58, & 66 are DENIED. Further, it is RECOMMENDED that: 1. Plaintiff’s motion to name Doe defendant, construed as a motion to amend complaint, ECF No. 55, and his motion to amend, ECF No. 67, be DENIED. 2. Defendant’s motion for summary judgment, ECF No. 51, be DENIED without prejudice to refiling at the new close of discovery. These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen days after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Any response to the objections shall be served and filed within fourteen days after service of the objections. The parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Turner v. Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 (9th Cir. 1998); Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 1718 SO ORDERED. ( — Dated: __March 11,2024 Jess Vote JEREMY D. PETERSON ; UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE ul