(PC) Duncan v. California Healthcare Receivership Corp.

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA DIONTAE JOHAN DUNCAN, Case No. 1:20-cv-01288-ADA-SKO (PC) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING EXTENSION OF TIME WITHIN WHICH TO FILE 13 v. RESPONSIVE PLEADING ON BEHALF OF ALL DEFENDANTS CALIFORNIA HEALTHCARE RECEIVERSHIP CORP., et al., (Doc. 98) Defendants.

Plaintiff Diontae Johan Duncan is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action proceeds on Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference to serious medical needs claims against Defendants Marciel, Gallienne, Grewal, Taylor, and Jane Does #1 and #2.

I. RELEVANT PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND On June 6, 2023, this Court issued its Order Finding Service Appropriate, directing service of process of Plaintiff’s second amended complaint through the Court’s e-service pilot program. (Doc. 81.)

On July 20, 2023, the Court granted the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation’s (“CDCR”) motion for a 14-day extension of time within which to advise the Court whether personal service was to be waived as to Defendants. (Doc. 86.) That same date, the CDCR filed a notice of intent to waive service of process regarding Defendant Marciel and Taylor (Doc. 87) and a notice of intent not to waive service concerning Defendants Gallienne and Grewal (then identified as W. Gerderal III and G. Graywall) (Doc. 88).

5 Following receipt of information submitted by Plaintiff on August 10, 2023, the Court issued its Order Finding Re-Service Appropriate as to Certain Defendants on August 17, 2023.

7 (Doc. 92.)

8 On September 12, 2023, the CDCR filed a notice of intent to waive service concerning Defendants Grewal and Gallienne. (Doc. 97.)

10 On September 15, 2023, the Attorney General’s Office filed a motion for a 60-day extension of time to file a responsive pleading. (Doc. 98.)

12 II. DISCUSSION 13 In their motion, Defendants Marciel and Taylor seek a 60-day extension of time within which to file a responsive pleading. (Doc. 98.) Defense counsel states she represents Marciel and Taylor in this action and has substantially completed a responsive pleading on their behalf. (Id. at 3, ¶ 5.) Defense counsel notes the Attorney General’s Office does not currently represent Defendants Gallienne and Grewal, but is in the process of determining whether it will represent these individuals. (Id. at 3, ¶ 1.) The responsive pleading on behalf of Marciel and Taylor is due to be filed September 18, 2023, but on September 12, 2023, the CDCR filed notice of intent to waive service of process regarding Defendants Gallienne and Grewal. (Id. at 3, ¶¶ 1, 6.) The responsive pleading on behalf of Gallienne and Grewal is due November 11, 2023. (Id.) Defense counsel asserts a 60-day extension of time, up to and including November 17, 2023, would allow counsel time to determine whether the Attorney General’s Office will “undertake representation of Defendants Gallienne III and Grewal and allow all Defendants to have a single responsive pleading deadline.” (Id. at 3, ¶ 7.) Defendant counsel states the extension will not prejudice Plaintiff, nor significantly delay this action. (Id. at 3, ¶ 8.) Finally, defense counsel states the request is made in good faith, and not for the purpose of delay, harassment, or any improper reason. (Id. at 3, ¶ 10.)

2 The Court will extend the deadline for the filing of a responsive pleading by all Defendants. See FTC v. Gill, 265 F.3d 944, 954-55 (9th Cir. 2001) (noting district court’s broad discretion to control its docket and set deadlines).

5 III. CONCLUSION AND ORDER 6 For good cause shown, the request for an extension of time to file a single responsive pleading is GRANTED. Defendants Marciel, Taylor, Gallienne and Grewal shall file a responsive pleading no later than November 17, 2023.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

11 Dated: September 18, 2023 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto .

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE