Mootry v. Flores et al

Filing 95

ORDER GRANTING Defendants' Motion to Modify the Scheduling Order 94 , signed by Magistrate Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe on 9/4/14: Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment due on or before October 3, 2014. (Hellings, J)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

MICHAEL MOOTRY,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14
15

v.
E. G. FLORES, et al.,
Defendants.

16
17

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No.: 1:09-cv-01252-LJO-BAM (PC)
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION
TO MODIFY THE SCHEDULING ORDER
(ECF No. 94)
Deadline: October 3, 2014

Plaintiff Michael Mootry (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma

18

pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action proceeds against

19

Defendants Hedgpeth, Flores, Wegman, Lewis and Cabrera for violations of the Free Exercise Clause

20

of the First Amendment.

21

Pursuant to the May 22, 2013 Scheduling Order, the dispositive motion deadline was March

22

31, 2014. (ECF No. 69.) On March 30, 2014, the Court extended the dispositive motion deadline to

23

May 30, 2014. (ECF No. 83.) Subsequently, on May 14, 2014, the Court extended the dispositive

24

motion deadline to September 12, 2014. (ECF No. 86.)

25

On September 3, 2014, Defendants filed the instant motion to modify the discovery and

26

scheduling order. Defendants seek to extend the dispositive motion an additional twenty-one days to

27

October 3, 2014, in order to permit counsel time to prepare the motion for summary judgment. (ECF

28
1

1

No. 94.) The Court finds a response unnecessary and the motion is deemed submitted.1 Local Rule

2

230(l).
Pursuant to Rule 16(b), a scheduling order “may be modified only for good cause and with the

3
4

judge’s consent.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4). The “good cause” standard “primarily considers the

5

diligence of the party seeking the amendment.” Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604,

6

609 (9th Cir. 1992). The court may modify the scheduling order “if it cannot reasonably be met

7

despite the diligence of the party seeking the extension.” Id. If the party was not diligent, the inquiry

8

should end. Id.
Here, Defendants explain that their previous counsel is no longer employed by the Attorney

9
10

General’s Office and this matter was reassigned to current counsel on July 7, 2014. Due to deadlines

11

in other matters, defense counsel has not had sufficient time to speak with defendants, obtain signed

12

declarations, and complete a summary judgment motion. Although counsel began drafting the motion

13

on August 22, 2014, additional time is necessary to complete the motion and obtain the supporting

14

declarations. (ECF No. 94-2; Samson Dec. ¶¶ 2-3, 6-8.)
Good cause appearing, Defendants’ motion to modify the scheduling order is GRANTED.

15
16

Defendants’ motion for summary judgment shall be filed on or before October 3, 2014.

17
18

IT IS SO ORDERED.

19

Dated:

20

/s/ Barbara

September 4, 2014

A. McAuliffe

_

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
1

28

Plaintiff will not be prejudiced by an inability to file a response. The brief extension of time will not prejudice Plaintiff’s
ability to oppose any motion for summary judgment.

2