Nimer v. Ryan et al

Filing 68

ORDER that Plaintiff's Motion for Extension of Time for Deadlines Set bythe Court 60 is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. The Motion is granted in that the deadline to bring discovery disputes to the Court's attention is extended by sixty days to May 3, 2014. The other requested extensions are denied. Signed by Magistrate Judge Lawrence O Anderson on 4/14/2014.(ALS)

1

WO

2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

8
9

Alan Troy Nimer,
Plaintiff,

10
11

vs.

12

Charles L. Ryan, et al.,

13

Defendants.

14

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. CV-12-1435-PHX-ROS (LOA)
ORDER

15

This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motion for Extension of Time for

16

Deadlines Set by the Court. (Doc. 60) Defendants have filed a Response and Plaintiff has filed

17

a Reply. (Docs. 64, 67)

18

Plaintiff initiated this action by filing a Civil Rights Complaint by a Prisoner on July

19

2, 2012. (Doc. 1) Upon screening the Complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a), the assigned

20

District Judge dismissed it for failure to state a claim but granted Plaintiff leave to file an

21

amended complaint. (Doc. 14 at 11-12) On February 8, 2013, Plaintiff filed a First Amended

22

Complaint. (Doc. 23) Upon screening the First Amended Complaint, the District Judge directed

23

Defendants Brown, Gabowski, Taylor and Hernandez to answer Counts One and Two, but

24

dismissed Count Three, and several other defendants, without prejudice. (Doc. 24 at 16)

25

In the instant Motion, Plaintiff requests a ninety-day extension of the deadlines set by

26

the Court in the scheduling and discovery order, doc. 32. Specifically, Plaintiff seeks an

27

extension of the deadline to request additional discovery and the deadline to bring discovery

28

disputes to the Court’s attention. No other deadlines are addressed in the Motion.

1

The basis for Plaintiff’s requested extensions appears to be that he did not receive his

2

medical records until later than anticipated because he was transferred to a different housing

3

unit. He claims his review of the medical records reveals a need for additional discovery

4

requests, though he fails to explain what additional discovery he needs. Plaintiff also fails to

5

explain why he needs an extension of the deadline for presenting discovery disputes to the

6

Court.

7

In the Response, Defendants acknowledge there was a delay in Plaintiff’s receipt of

8

his medical records as a result of his transfer to another prison housing unit. Defendants,

9

therefore, do not oppose a sixty-day extension of the deadline to bring discovery disputes to the

10

Court’s attention. They oppose any other extensions, arguing Plaintiff has offered no good cause

11

for his delay in requesting the extensions.

12

In the Reply, in addition to the two extensions requested in the Motion, Plaintiff seeks

13

an extension of the deadline to amend the complaint. Again, however, the only reason provided

14

for the requested extensions is the delay in receiving medical records. He fails to explain why

15

the delayed receipt of his medical records warrants additional time for discovery requests and

16

an amended complaint.

17

A scheduling order “may be modified only for good cause and with the judge’s

18

consent.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 16(b)(4). For purposes of this rule, “good cause” means the scheduling

19

deadlines cannot be met despite the party’s diligence. Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc.,

20

975 F.2d 604, 609 (9th Cir. 1992) (citing 6A Wright, Miller & Kane, Federal Practice and

21

Procedure § 1522.1 at 231 (2d ed. 1990)). “The pretrial schedule may be modified if it cannot

22

reasonably be met despite the diligence of the party seeking the extension. If the party seeking

23

the modification was not diligent, the inquiry should end and the motion to modify should not

24

be granted.” Zivkovic v. Southern California Edison Co., 302 F.3d 1080, 1087 (9th Cir. 2002)

25

(citation and internal quotation marks omitted).

26

In light of Defendants’ non-opposition to a sixty-day extension of the deadline to

27

bring discovery disputes to the Court’s attention, the Court will grant such an extension.

28

However, Plaintiff’s requests to extend the time to seek additional discovery and amend the
-2-

1

complaint will be denied. Plaintiff has not demonstrated good cause to extend the deadlines

2

previously imposed in the scheduling and discovery order. The only reason he gives for the

3

requested extensions is the delayed receipt of his medical records. That, in itself, is insufficient

4

to establish good cause to extend the two other deadlines.

5

Accordingly,

6

IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Extension of Time for Deadlines Set by

7

the Court, doc. 60, is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. The Motion is granted in that

8

the deadline to bring discovery disputes to the Court’s attention is extended by sixty days to

9

May 3, 2014. The other requested extensions are denied.

10

DATED this 14th day of April, 2014.

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-3-