Mitchell v. James et al

Filing 40

ORDER GRANTING Defendant's 39 Motion for Relief From the Discovery/Scheduling Order signed by Magistrate Judge Gary S. Austin on 6/18/15. (Marrujo, C)

1
2
3
4
5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

6

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

7
8

DESHAWN MITCHELL,

9

Plaintiff,

10
11

vs.

1:11-cv-00099-LJO-GSA-PC
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S
MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM THE
DISCOVERY/SCHEDULING ORDER
(Doc. 39.)

SERGEANT M. JONES, et al.,

12

Defendants.

13
14

I.

BACKGROUND

15

Deshawn Mitchell (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with this civil rights

16

action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On January 20, 2011, Plaintiff filed the Complaint

17

commencing this action. (Doc. 1.) The court screened the Complaint and issued an order on

18

January 28, 2014, requiring Plaintiff to either file an amended complaint, or notify the court of

19

his willingness to proceed only on the claims found cognizable by the court. (Doc. 11.) On

20

February 7, 2014, Plaintiff notified the court of his willingness to proceed only on the

21

cognizable claims. (Doc. 13.) The case then proceeded on Plaintiff’s original Complaint,

22

against defendant Sergeant M. Jones (“Defendant”) for subjecting Plaintiff to adverse

23

conditions of confinement in violation of the Eighth Amendment.1 (Doc. 1.) Defendant filed

24
25
26
27
28

1

On March 13, 2014, the court issued an order dismissing all other claims and defendants from
this action, based on Plaintiff’s failure to state a claim. (Doc. 15.) The order dismissed Plaintiff’s claims for
improper processing of inmate appeals and for supervisory liability. (Id.) The order also dismissed defendants
Lieutenant D. James, Property Officer F. Carreon, Correctional Officer J. Mendez, Appeals Coordinator R.
Gomez, Appeals Coordinator R. Hall, and Appeals Coordinator L. Zinani from this action based on Plaintiff's
failure to state any claims against them. (Id.)
1

1

an Answer to the Complaint on August 7, 2014. (Doc. 32.) On August 8, 2014, the court

2

issued a discovery/scheduling order establishing a deadline of April 8, 2015 for the parties to

3

complete discovery, and a deadline of June 18, 2015 for the parties to file pretrial dispositive

4

motions. (Doc. 34.)

5

On March 25, 2015, Defendant Jones filed a notice of related cases, notifying the court

6

that this case was related to another case filed by Plaintiff at this court, case number 1:15-cv-

7

00467-DLB-PC; Mitchell v. Jones. (Doc. 36.) On April 6, 2015, the court consolidated this

8

case with case number 1:15-cv-00467-DLB-PC and ordered Plaintiff to file an amended

9

complaint including all of his claims against defendant Jones. (Doc. 37.) Defendant Jones was

10

advised in the order that he was not required to file an answer to the amended complaint until

11

after the court had screened the amended complaint. (Id. at 5:1-3.) On April 20, 2015, Plaintiff

12

filed the First Amended Complaint, which awaits the court’s requisite screening. (Doc. 38.)
On June 16, 2015, defendant Jones filed a request for relief from the court’s

13
14

discovery/scheduling order. (Doc. 39.)

15

II.

MOTION TO MODIFY SCHEDULING ORDER

16

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

17

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

18

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

19

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

20

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

21

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

22

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

23

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

24

(9th Cir. 2002).

25

Defendant Jones argues that good cause exists to grant him relief from the court’s

26

discovery/scheduling order, because the First Amended Complaint has superceded it.

27

Defendant argues that he has been diligent in this matter, has timely complied with all

28

///
2

1

deadlines, and is seeking relief only because the First Amended Complaint has not been

2

screened.

3

The court finds good cause to relieve defendant Jones from the deadlines and

4

requirements of the court’s discovery/scheduling order of August 8, 2014. Thus, Defendant’s

5

motion shall be granted.

6

III.

CONCLUSION

7

Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

8

1.

9
10

Defendant Jones’ request for relief from the court’s discovery/scheduling order
of August 8, 2014 is GRANTED; and

2.

11

The court shall screen the First Amended Complaint in due course and issue a
new discovery/scheduling order at a later stage of the proceedings.

12
13
14
15

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

June 18, 2015

/s/ Gary S. Austin
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3