Serrano v. Rawers et al

Filing 53

ORDER DENYING Defendant's 52 Motion to Extend Dispositive Motion Deadline signed by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Seng on 5/15/2015. (Sant Agata, S)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

10

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

11
12
JESSIE L. SERRANO,

CASE NO. 1: 11-cv-00399-MJS (PC)

13
Plaintiff,

14
v.

15
16

SCOTT RAWERS, et al.,

ORDER
DENYING
DEFENDANT’S
MOTION TO EXTEND DISPOSITIVE
MOTION DEADLINE
(ECF No. 52)

Defendants.

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

I.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil

rights action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The action proceeds against
Defendant Lucas on Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment failure to protect claim. (ECF No. 11.)
On June 16, 2014, the Court issued a discovery and scheduling order, setting
April 27, 2015 as the deadline for dispositive motions. (ECF No. 30.) On September 16,
2014, Defendant filed a motion for summary judgment on the ground that Plaintiff failed
to exhaust his administrative remedies. (ECF No. 34.) On March 30, 2015, prior to the
deadline for dispositive motions, the Court denied Defendant’s motion. (ECF No. 47.)

1
2
3

On May 4, 2015, the Court issued a second scheduling order, granted Defendant
additional time to conduct Plaintiff’s deposition, and set the matter for trial on November
12, 2015. (ECF Nos. 48 & 49.)

4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26

Before the Court is Defendant’s motion to act after expiration of time. (ECF No.
52.)
II.

MOTION TO MODIFY SCHEDULING ORDER
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(b)(4) allows the Court to modify its scheduling

order for good cause. The “good cause” standard focuses primarily on the diligence of
the party seeking the amendment. Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d
604, 609 (9th Cir.1992). “[C]arelessness is not compatible with a finding of diligence and
offers no reason for a grant of relief.” Id. “Although the existence or degree of prejudice
to the party opposing the modification might supply additional reasons to deny a motion,
the focus of the inquiry is upon the moving party's reasons for seeking modification.” Id.
Therefore, parties must “diligently attempt to adhere to th[e] schedule throughout the
subsequent course of the litigation.” Jackson v. Laureate, Inc., 186 F.R.D. 605, 607
(E.D. Cal. 1999).

The Court has wide discretion to extend time, Jenkins v.

Commonwealth Land Title Ins. Co., 95 F.3d 791, 795 (9th Cir. 1996), provided a party
demonstrates some justification for the issuance of the enlargement order. Fed. R. Civ.
P. 6(b)(1); Ginett v. Fed. Express Corp., 166 F.3d 1213 at 5* (6th Cir. 1998).
Here, Defendant seeks additional time, until July 20, 2015, to file a motion for
summary judgment on the merits of Plaintiff’s failure to protect claim.

In doing so,

Defendant cites to Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b), which allows for extensions of time if a “party
failed to act because of excusable neglect.”

Defendant’s counsel argues that “he

inadvertently omitted” this request from his prior motion seeking an extension of time to
take Plaintiff’s deposition, that extending the deadline will not delay the trial, that his
client should not be punished for his inadvertence, and allowing the extension could

27
28
2

1
2

enable the parties to forgo the expenditure of time and resources on a trial. (ECF No.
52.)

3
4
5
6
7
8
9

Here, Defendant is seeking to modify the Court’s scheduling order and the
deadline for dispositive motions set therein. Therefore, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
16 and the “good cause” standard applies. A counsel’s inadvertence or carelessness
fails to meet this standard. See Johnson, 975 F.2d at 609.
III.

ORDER
Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:
Defendant’s motion to act after expiration of time is DENIED. (ECF No. 52)

10
11

IT IS SO ORDERED.

12
13

Dated:

May 15, 2015

/s/

Michael J. Seng

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3