Fields v. Lloren et al

Filing 28

ORDER DENYING 26 Motion to Modify the Discovery and Scheduling Order signed by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Seng on 8/20/2012. (Sant Agata, S)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9
10

KEVIN E. FIELDS,

1:09-cv-01733-AWI-MJS-PC
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO MODIFY
THE DISCOVERY AND SCHEDULING
ORDER

11
Plaintiff,
12
v.
13
T. LLOREN, et al.,

(ECF No. 26)

14
15

Defendants.
/

16
17
18

Plaintiff Kevin E. Fields (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in
forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

19

Plaintiff initiated this action on October 2, 2009. (ECF No. 1.) The Court screened

20

Plaintiff’s Complaint on December 10, 2010, and dismissed it with leave to amend. (ECF

21

No. 9.) Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint on December 17, 2010. (ECF No. 10.)

22

The Court found that Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint stated a cognizable claim against

23

Defendants Lloren and Battles and ordered service on these Defendants. (ECF Nos. 18,

24

19, & 21.) Defendants filed an Answer in the action on April 20, 2012 (ECF No. 24), and

25

the Court issued a Discovery and Scheduling Order on May 1, 2012 (ECF No. 25).

26

Pursuant to that Order, discovery in this matter is to close on January 1, 2013 and

27

dispositive motions are to be filed by March 11, 2013. (ECF No. 25.)

28
-1-

1

On June 4, 2012, Plaintiff filed a motion requesting that the Discovery and

2

Scheduling Order be modified so that the time for obtaining discovery and filing dispositive

3

motions be shortened. (Mot., ECF No. 26.) Defendants have not filed an opposition. The

4

time for filing an opposition has passed. Local Rule 230. Plaintiff’s motion is now before

5

the Court.

6

Pursuant to Rule 16(b)(4) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, absent a showing

7

of good cause the Court cannot modify the Discovery and Second Scheduling Order.

8

Plaintiff asks that the Discovery and Scheduling Order be modified because he appears

9

to have all the discovery that he needs and can file a dispositive motion by September 3,

10

2012. (Mot. at 7.) However, Defendants have not said whether or not this deadline is

11

acceptable to them and, lacking assurances that they will not be prejudiced, the Court will

12

not curtail their discovery period in this action. Plaintiff can file a motion for summary

13

judgment at any time prior to March 11, 2012. (ECF No. 25); Fed. R. Civ. P. 56. Plaintiff

14

does not have to wait until the last date set in the Discovery and Scheduling Order to file

15

a motion for summary judgment.

16

Plaintiff has failed to show good cause for modification of the Discovery and

17

Scheduling Order. Accordingly, his motion for modification of the Discovery and Scheduling

18

Order is DENIED.

19
20

IT IS SO ORDERED.

21

Dated:
ci4d6

August 20, 2012

Michael J. Seng

/s/
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-2-