Tyrone D. Newman v. Brandon et al

Filing 29

ORDER Denying 28 Plaintiff's Motion to Postpone Discovery, signed by Magistrate Judge Jennifer L. Thurston on 9/11/11. (Verduzco, M)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

TYRONE D. NEWMAN,

12

Case No. 1:10-cv-00687 AWI JLT (PC)

Plaintiff,

13

vs.

14

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION
TO POSTPONE DISCOVERY

BRANDON, et al.,

(Doc. 28)
15
16

Defendants.
/

17

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with a civil rights action

18

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On September 6, 2011, Plaintiff filed a motion requesting that discovery

19

be postponed in this action. (Doc. 28.) Plaintiff explains that he is set to be released from incarceration

20

on October 21, 2011 and has accordingly sent all his legal property home. (Id. at 1.) Plaintiff thereby

21

suggests that he will be unable to conduct discovery until he returns home.

22

The Court may modify a scheduling order for good cause. Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4). Good cause

23

exists where the party seeking modification is able to show that despite its due diligence, the party is

24

unable to meet the deadlines set by the Court. Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604,

25

609 (9th Cir. 1992). In this case, Plaintiff fails to demonstrate good cause for modifying the scheduling

26

order. The Court only recently issued the scheduling order, and discovery is not set to close in this case

27

until April 22, 2012. (Doc. 25.) Therefore, even if Plaintiff will not have access to his legal property

28

until he returns home on October 21, 2011, he has more than sufficient time to conduct discovery.
1

1
2

Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s September 6, 2011 motion to postpone
discovery (Doc. 28) is DENIED.

3
4

IT IS SO ORDERED.

5

Dated: September 11, 2011
9j7khi

/s/ Jennifer L. Thurston
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2