Dynes v. Medina, et al

Filing 30

ORDER DENYING 29 Plaintiff's Motion for Extension of all Scheduling Order Deadlines to August 1, 2009; DIRECTING Clerk's Office to Send Copy of Docket to Plaintiff, signed by Magistrate Judge Gary S. Austin on 2/19/2009. (Jessen, A)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Plaintiff John Ray Dynes ("Plaintiff") is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma 16 pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On September 24, 2008, the Court 17 issued a scheduling setting the deadline to amend the pleadings for March 18, 2009, the discovery 18 deadline for May 18, 2009, and the pretrial dispositive motion deadline for July 20, 2009. On 19 January 26, 2009, Plaintiff filed a motion seeking an extension of all deadlines to August 1, 2009, 20 due to his incarceration and problems locating his legal work following separation from his wife. 21 Modification of the pretrial scheduling order requires a showing of good cause. Fed. R. Civ. 22 P. 16(b). "The schedule may be modified `if it cannot reasonably be met despite the diligence of the 23 party seeking the extension.'" Zivkovic v. Southern California Edison Co., 302 F.3d 1080, 1087 (9th 24 Cir. 2002) (quoting Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 607 (9th Cir. 1992)). "If 25 the party seeking the modification `was not diligent, the inquiry should end' and the motion to 26 modify should not be granted." Id. 27 /// 28 1 v. C/O JUAN MEDINA, et al., Defendants. / JOHN RAY DYNES, Plaintiff, CASE NO. 1:08-cv-00136-LJO-GSA PC ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF ALL SCHEDULING ORDER DEADLINES TO AUGUST 1, 2009 (Doc. 29) ORDER DIRECTING CLERK'S OFFICE TO SEND COPY OF DOCKET TO PLAINTIFF

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

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

Plaintiff's general request for an extension of the deadlines is insufficient. The only deadline that expires soon is the amended pleadings deadline, and Plaintiff has not demonstrated any need for an extension of that deadline or due diligence. Accordingly, Plaintiff's motion for an extension of the scheduling order deadlines to August 1, 2009, is HEREBY DENIED. The Clerk's Office is DIRECTED to send Plaintiff a copy of the docket in this case.

IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: i0d3h8

February 19, 2009

/s/ Gary S. Austin UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

2