Baltimore v. Haggins

Filing 25

ORDER REQUIRING Defendant to Notify the Court of His Willingness to Engage In An Early Settlement Conference re 24 and ORDER DENYING 23 Plaintiff's Request to Modify Scheduling Order, signed by Magistrate Judge Jennifer L. Thurston on 12/14/2011. Defendant's Response due within five (5) court days days. (Jessen, A)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

ROBERT BALTIMORE,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14

vs.
CHRISTOPHER HAGGINS,

15

Defendant.

16

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

17
18

Case No. 1:10-cv-00931 LJO JLT (PC)
ORDER REQUIRING DEFENDANT TO
NOTIFY THE COURT OF HIS WILLINGNESS
TO ENGAGE IN AN EARLY SETTLEMENT
CONFERENCE
(Doc. 24)
ORDER DENYING REQUEST TO MODIFY
SCHEDULING ORDER
(Doc. 23)

I.

Request for Settlement Demand

19

On December 12, 2011, Plaintiff Robert Baltimore, a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in

20

forma pauperis in this civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, filed a “demand for

21

settlement.” (Doc. 24.)

22

Therefore, within five court days, Defendant is ORDERED to notify the Court of his willingness

23

to engage in an early settlement conference.

24

II.

Motion to amend the scheduling order

25

On December 12, 2011, Plaintiff also filed a request for a 45-day extension of time as to all

26

deadlines currently in place. (Doc. 23) Plaintiff explains that this is needed because the copy machine

27

in the law library at his place on incarceration is broken. However, he does not explain what documents

28

he needs to copy or how the inability to copy these documents impacts the case schedule. The only
1

1

pending deadline is the completion of discovery, including all discovery motions, on February 3, 2012,

2

more than 50 days from now. Thus, the Court has no understanding how a temporarily broken copy

3

machine would justify the requested extension of the discovery deadline.

4

Notably, a scheduling order may be modified only for good cause and with the judge’s consent.

5

Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4). Good cause exists where the moving party demonstrates that it could not meet

6

the court’s deadline despite exercising due diligence. Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d

7

604, 609 (9th Cir. 1992). Because Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate good cause to modify the

8

scheduling order, the motion is DENIED.

9

Alternatively, Plaintiff requests the Court order Corcoran state prison to make available to him

10

a working copy machine. Plaintiff is advised that the Court has not authority to order the prison to

11

provide him a working copy machine. The pendency of this action does not give the Court jurisdiction

12

over the law librarian or any other prison official at the Corcoran State Prison and the Court cannot issue

13

an order requiring prison officials to grant Plaintiff access to photocopier. See e.g., Summers v. Earth

14

Island Institute, 555 U.S. 488, ___, 129 S.Ct. 1142, 1149 (2009) (the plaintiff bears the burden of

15

establishing standing for each form of relief he seeks in federal court); City of Los Angeles v. Lyons,

16

461 U.S. 95, 101, 103 S.Ct. 1660, 1665 (1983); Mayfield v. United States, 599 F.3d 964, 969 (9th Cir.

17

2010).

18
19

IT IS SO ORDERED.

20

Dated: December 14, 2011
9j7khi

/s/ Jennifer L. Thurston
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2