Porter v. Jennings et al

Filing 138

ORDER Denying Plaintiff's Motions (ECF Nos. 131 , 132 , 133 , 134 , 135 , 136 ), signed by Magistrate Judge Dennis L. Beck on 6/23/2013. (Fahrney, E)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9
10

SAMUEL KENNETH PORTER,

11
12

Plaintiff,

Case No. 1:10-cv-01811-AWI-DLB PC
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S
MOTIONS

v.
ECF Nos. 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136

13
14

CAPTAIN JENNINGS, et al.,
Defendants.

15
16

Plaintiff Samuel Kenneth Porter (“Plaintiff”) is a California state prisoner proceeding pro se

17

and in forma pauperis in this civil action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action is proceeding on

18

Plaintiff’s first amended complaint against Defendants Jennings and Lowe for failure to protect in

19

violation of the Eighth Amendment.

20

Pending before the Court are: 1) Plaintiff’s motion, filed May 3, 2013, for service of

21

subpoena duces tecum, 2) Plaintiff’s motion, filed May 9, 2013, for in camera appointment of

22

polygraph examiner, 3) Plaintiff’s motion, filed May 30, 2013, requesting leave to serve written

23

depositions, 4) Plaintiff’s motion, filed May 31, 2013, for service of additional subpoenas, and 5)

24

Plaintiff’s motion for written deposition, filed June 6, 2013. Plaintiff also filed a motion requesting

25

an extension of time to gather more evidence for trial.

26

Plaintiff is in effect seeking a modification of the Court’s Schedule in order to conduct

27

additional discovery in this action. The decision to modify a scheduling order is within the broad

28

discretion of the district court. Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 607 (9th Cir.
1

1

1992) (quoting Miller v. Safeco Title Ins. Co., 758 F.2d 364, 369 (9th Cir. 1985)). Pursuant to Rule

2

16 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a pretrial scheduling order “shall not be modified except

3

upon a showing of good cause,” and leave of court. Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4); Zivkovic v. S. Cal.

4

Edison Co., 302 F.3d 1080, 1087-88 (9th Cir. 2002). Although “the existence or degree of prejudice

5

to the party opposing the modification might supply additional reasons to deny a motion, the focus

6

of the inquiry is upon the moving party’s reasons for seeking modification.” Johnson, 975 F.2d at

7

609.

8
9
10

Plaintiff fails to demonstrate good cause to modify the schedule in this action. Discovery
was closed as of April 17, 2012. ECF No. 23. Plaintiff presents no good cause to permit additional
discovery. Plaintiff’s indigent and pro se status are not good cause.1
Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motions are denied.

11
12
13

IT IS SO ORDERED.

14

Dated:

/s/ Dennis

June 23, 2013

L. Beck

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

15

DEAC_Signature-END:

16

3b142a

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

1

Plaintiff is not prohibited from obtaining other documents that he believes are necessary for trial, so long as it
does not involve the use of additional discovery requests.

2