Berreondo v. Akanno et al

Filing 64

ORDER DENYING 58 Motion for Extension of Time AS MOOT and ORDER DENYING 60 Plaintiff's Second Motion to Modify Schedule signed by Magistrate Judge Dennis L. Beck on 5/9/2013. (Jessen, A)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9
10

MAXIMO BERREONDO,

11
12

Plaintiff,
v.

13

JONATHAN AKANNO,

14

Defendant.

Case No. 1:11-cv-00432-LJO-DLB PC
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR
EXTENSION OF TIME AS MOOT (ECF No.
58)
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S SECOND
MOTION TO MODIFY SCHEDULE
(ECF No. 60)

15
16

Plaintiff Maximo Berreondo (“Plaintiff”) is a prisoner in the custody of the California

17

Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (“CDCR”). Plaintiff is proceeding pro se and in

18

forma pauperis in this civil action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action proceeds against

19

Defendant Jonathan Akanno for deliberate indifference to a serious medical need in violation of the

20

Eighth Amendment. On April 19, 2013, Plaintiff filed his second Motion to modify the Court’s

21

Discovery and Scheduling Order. ECF No. 60. On April 24, 2013, Defendant filed his Opposition.

22

ECF No. 62. The matter is submitted pursuant to Local Rule 230(l).1

23

The decision to modify a scheduling order is within the broad discretion of the district court.

24

Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 607 (9th Cir. 1992) (quoting Miller v. Safeco

25

Title Ins. Co., 758 F.2d 364, 369 (9th Cir. 1985)). Pursuant to Rule 16 of the Federal Rules of Civil

26

Procedure, a pretrial scheduling order “shall not be modified except upon a showing of good cause,”

27
28

1

On February 27, 2013, Plaintiff filed a motion entitled “Renewed Motion for Extension of Time Re Discovery
Cut-Off Date.” ECF No. 58. The Court resolved that motion on February 25, 2013. ECF No. 57. Accordingly,
Plaintiff’s motion is DENIED as moot.

1

1

and leave of court. Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4); Zivkovic v. S. Cal. Edison Co., 302 F.3d 1080, 1087-88

2

(9th Cir. 2002). Although “the existence or degree of prejudice to the party opposing the

3

modification might supply additional reasons to deny a motion, the focus of the inquiry is upon the

4

moving party’s reasons for seeking modification.” Johnson, 975 F.2d at 609.

5

Plaintiff contends that Defendant Akanno failed to make automatic discovery as required by

6

Rule 26(a)(1)(A) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and that Defendant was deflective in his

7

discovery responses. Pl.’s Mot. 1.

8

Defendant contends that Plaintiff was not diligent in making this request. Def.’s Opp’n 2:13-

9

27. Defendant contends that Plaintiff has served extensive discovery and fails to explain why he did

10
11

not use the extension of time provided by the Court.
The original discovery cut-off date in this action was December 18, 2012. Discovery and

12

Scheduling Order, ECF No. 36. The Court modified the date to April 19, 2013 on February 25,

13

2013. Defendant was not ordered to provide initial discovery in this matter, and actions brought by a

14

person without an attorney in the custody of a state are exempt from initial disclosure. Fed. R. Civ.

15

P. 26(a)(1)(B). Plaintiff has not demonstrated diligence during discovery. Plaintiff has provided no

16

good cause to modify the current schedule.

17
18

Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion to modify the
schedule, filed April 19, 2013, is denied.

19
20
21

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

/s/ Dennis

May 9, 2013

L. Beck

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

22

DEAC_Signature-END:

23

3b142a

24
25
26
27
28
2