Carr v. Balaji

Summary

The United States District Court for the Eastern District of California granted a state prisoner additional time to conduct discovery and oppose a pending motion for summary judgment after appointed counsel withdrew. The court denied without prejudice the request to file a second amended complaint and denied the request to compel another attorney from former counsel’s firm to represent the plaintiff. The order set discovery, motion-to-compel, and summary-judgment opposition deadlines.

Holdings

1. The court granted plaintiff additional time to conduct discovery, file discovery motions, and oppose the pending motion for summary judgment because the circumstances surrounding counsel's withdrawal and the apparent lack of completed discovery supported modification of the schedule.
2. The court denied plaintiff's request to compel an attorney from former counsel's law firm to represent him.
3. The court denied plaintiff's request for leave to file a second amended complaint without prejudice.

Questions Presented

1. Whether plaintiff showed good cause to modify the scheduling order and obtain additional time for discovery and to oppose the pending summary judgment motion.
2. Whether the court could require another attorney from plaintiff's former counsel's firm to represent him.
3. Whether plaintiff should receive leave to file a second amended complaint asserting unspecified new claims.
4. Whether summary judgment should proceed before plaintiff had an opportunity for additional discovery relevant to his claims.

Disposition

other