Lacy v. Tyson et al
Filing
115
ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Gary S. Austin on 5/8/2012 granting 114 Request to Modify Scheduling Order. (Dispositive Motion due by 6/18/2012). (Lundstrom, T)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
GARY ANDRE LACY,
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
)
)
H. TYSON, et al.,
)
)
)
Defendants.
)
____________________________________)
1:07-cv-00381-LJO-GSA-PC
ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO
MODIFY SCHEDULING ORDER
(Doc. 114.)
New Dispositive M otions Deadline - 06-18-2012
17
Gary Andre Lacy ("Plaintiff") is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with
18
this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action now proceeds on the Second Amended
19
Complaint, filed on April 28, 2009, against defendants Correctional Officers R. Reyna, T. Reyna, and
20
N. Correa; Correctional Sergeants J. Peacock, M. Bremnar, and M. Brookwalter; Captain H. Tyson;
21
Medical Technician Assistant (MTA) Aspetitia; and Doctor I. Patel; on Plaintiff's claims for excessive
22
force, retaliation, and deliberate indifference to serious medical needs.1
23
On May 7, 2012, Defendants filed a motion to modify the scheduling order to extend the deadline
24
for filing pretrial dispositive motions from May 16, 2012 to June 18, 2012. (Doc. 114.)
25
///
26
1
27
Defendants Dill and Heanacho were dismissed by the Court on August 27, 2009. (Doc. 17.) Plaintiff's claims for
equal protection, and for retaliation against defendant Dill, were also dismissed by the Court, for failure to state a claim. Id.
28
1
1
A court may modify a scheduling order for good cause. Fed. R. Civ. P 16(b)(4). This good
2
cause standard “primarily considers the diligence of the party seeking the amendment.” Johnson, 975
3
F.2d at 609. To establish good cause, the party seeking the modification of a scheduling order must
4
generally show that even with the exercise of due diligence, they cannot meet the requirement of the
5
order. Id.
6
Defendants request an extension of the deadline because, despite their diligence, they have been
7
unable to complete their dispositive motion and supporting documents. (Declaration of Gregory Gomez,
8
Doc. 114 at 4.) Defendants describe their efforts in reviewing the case file, researching the legal issues,
9
interviewing witnesses, and preparing declarations in support of their dispositive motion, while
10
managing a busy caseload. (Id.)
11
12
The court finds that good cause has been presented by Defendants to modify the scheduling
order. Therefore, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
13
1.
14
Defendants’ motion to modify the court’s scheduling order of September 7, 2011, which
was also modified on December 8, 2011, is GRANTED;
15
2.
16
The deadline for all parties to this action to file pretrial dispositive motions is extended
from May 16, 2012 to June 18, 2012; and
17
3.
18
All other provisions of the court’s scheduling order of September 7, 2011, remain the
same.
19
20
IT IS SO ORDERED.
21
Dated:
6i0kij
May 8, 2012
/s/ Gary S. Austin
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?