Fields v. Patterson et al

Filing 61

ORDER GRANTING 59 Motion to Modify Scheduling Order; ORDER Extending Dispositive Motions Deadline for all Parties to this action; New Dispositive Motions Deadline to August 7, 2015 for all parties and All other provisions of the Court's June 10, 2014 Scheduling Order remain the same, signed by Magistrate Judge Gary S. Austin on 03/31/2015. (New Dispositive Motions Deadline: 08/07/2015(Martin-Gill, S)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11
12

Plaintiff,

13
14

1:10-cv-01700-LJO-GSA-PC

KEVIN E. FIELDS,

ORDER GRANTING REQUEST TO
MODIFY SCHEDULING ORDER
(Doc. 59.)

vs.
P. PATTERSON, et al.,

15

ORDER EXTENDING DISPOSITIVE
MOTIONS DEADLINE FOR ALL PARTIES
TO THIS ACTION

Defendants.

16
17

New Dispositive Motions Deadline: 08/07/15

18
19
20
21

I.

BACKGROUND
Kevin E. Fields (“Plaintiff”) is a prisoner proceeding pro se with this civil rights action

22

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

23

September 17, 2010. (Doc. 1.) This action now proceeds with the First Amended Complaint

24

filed on May 31, 2013, against defendant Correctional Officer P. Patterson (“Defendant”) for

25

use of excessive force in violation of the Eighth Amendment.1 (Doc. 16.)

Plaintiff filed the Complaint commencing this action on

26
1

27
28

On February 12, 2015, the court dismissed Plaintiff’s state law claims against defendants Molina and Finley and
retaliation claims against defendants Patterson and Molina, on Plaintiff’s Rule 41 motion to dismiss. (Doc. 51.) The court also
dismissed defendants Molina and Finley from this action, based on the dismissal of all of the claims against them. (Id.)
Previously, on March 12, 2014, the Court dismissed all other claims and defendants from this action, under Rule 18(a) or for
Plaintiff’s failure to state a claim. (Doc. 24.)

1

1

On June 10, 2014, the court issued a Scheduling Order establishing pretrial deadlines

2

for the parties, including a deadline of April 20, 2015 to file pretrial dispositive motions. (Doc.

3

31.) On March 25, 2015, Defendant filed a request to vacate or modify the dispositive motions

4

deadline. (Doc. 59.)

5

II.

MOTION TO MODIFY SCHEDULING ORDER

6

Modification of a scheduling order requires a showing of good cause, Fed. R. Civ. P.

7

16(b), and good cause requires a showing of due diligence, Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations,

8

Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 609 (9th Cir. 1992). To establish good cause, the party seeking the

9

modification of a scheduling order must generally show that even with the exercise of due

10

diligence, they cannot meet the requirement of the order. Id. The court may also consider the

11

prejudice to the party opposing the modification. Id. If the party seeking to amend the

12

scheduling order fails to show due diligence the inquiry should end and the court should not

13

grant the motion to modify. Zivkovic v. Southern California Edison, Co., 302 F.3d 1080, 1087

14

(9th Cir. 2002). A party may obtain relief from the court=s deadline date for discovery by

15

demonstrating good cause for allowing further discovery. Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4).

16

Defendant argues that good cause exists to vacate or modify the dispositive motions

17

deadline because Plaintiff still has not opposed Defendant’s exhaustion summary judgment

18

motion filed over six months ago on September 10, 2014. Defendant asserts that the motion

19

may dispose of one of Plaintiff’s claims, but without knowing the outcome, Defendant is

20

unable to discern whether it must be addressed in a dispositive motion on the merits.

21

Defendant argues that he has been diligent in completing discovery and seeking this

22

modification well in advance of the April 20, 2015 deadline. Defendant also argues that

23

modifying the deadline will not significantly impair the progress of this case or unfairly

24

prejudice Plaintiff.

25

The court finds good cause to extend the dispositive motions deadline in this action

26

until August 7, 2015.

27

Scheduling Order shall be granted.

28

///

Thus, good cause appearing, Defendant’s motion to modify the

2

1

III.

CONCLUSION

2

Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

3

1.

4
5

2014, is GRANTED;
2.

6
7

Defendant’s request to modify the Court's Scheduling Order, filed on June 10,

The deadline for filing and serving pretrial dispositive motions is extended from
April 20, 2015 to August 7, 2015 for all parties to this action; and

4.

8

All other provisions of the court's June 10, 2014 Scheduling Order remain the
same.

9
10
11
12

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

March 31, 2015

/s/ Gary S. Austin
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22

23
24
25
26
27
28
3