Rowe v. Castro et al

Filing 36

ORDER GRANTING Motion to Modify Scheduling Order 35 , signed by Magistrate Judge Gary S. Austin on 6/16/10: Pretrial Dispositive Motions ddl EXTENDED to August 22, 2010. (Hellings, J)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 DANIEL ROWE, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) vs. ) ) M. CASTRO, et al., ) ) ) Defendants. ) ____________________________________) 1:07-cv-01150-GSA-PC ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO MODIFY SCHEDULING ORDER (Doc. 35.)
N e w Dispositive M o t io n s Deadline - 08-22-2010

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Daniel Rowe ("Plaintiff") is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff filed this action on August 8, 2007. (Doc. 1.) The case now proceeds on Plaintiff's amended complaint filed on May 22, 2008, against defendants M. Castro and K. Frescura ("Defendants") for First Amendment Retaliation. (Doc. 10.) On June 15, 2010, Defendants filed a motion to modify the court's scheduling order. (Doc. 35.) A court may modify a scheduling order for good cause. Fed.R.Civ.P 16(b)(4). This good cause standard "primarily considers the diligence of the party seeking the amendment." Johnson, 975 F.2d at 609. To establish good cause, the party seeking the modification of a scheduling order must generally show that even with the exercise of due diligence, they cannot meet the requirement of the order. Id. Defendants seek a sixty-day extension of the dispositive motions deadline which was established by the court's scheduling order of June 2, 2009 and subsequently extended by the court's order of February 18, 2010. (Docs. 21, 30.) The current deadline is June 21, 2010. Defendants request an

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13

extension because the case was recently referred to new counsel and more time is needed for the new attorney to familiarize herself with the case and file a motion for summary judgment. The new attorney is also preparing for a trial in another case scheduled to begin on June 28, 2010 and preparing and defending five client depositions in yet another case. She has filed a declaration in which she describes her workload and indicates that she cannot meet the current deadline. The court finds that good cause has been presented by Defendants to modify the scheduling order. Therefore, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 1. 2. Defendants' motion to modify the court's scheduling order is GRANTED; and The deadline for all parties to this action to file pretrial dispositive motions is extended to August 22, 2010.

IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: 6i0kij

June 16, 2010

/s/ Gary S. Austin UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28