Wheeler v. Alison et al

Filing 97

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Dennis L. Beck on 5/12/14 granting 95 MOTION for 30-DAY EXTENSION OF TIME to on Discovery Schedule Order filed by Eric Wheeler. ( Discovery due by 7/16/2014, Dispositive Motions filed by 9/15/2014). (Lundstrom, T)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ERIC WHEELER, 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. 14 ALLISON, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Case No.: 1:12cv00861 LJO DLB (PC) ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO MODIFY DISCOVERY AND SCHEDULING ORDER (Document 95) Plaintiff Eric Wheeler (“Plaintiff”) is a prisoner in the custody of the California Department of 18 Corrections and Rehabilitation (“CDCR”). Plaintiff is proceeding pro se in this civil rights action 19 pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 20 Defendants Allison, Duck, Murrieta, Lowder, Loftis, Neubarth, Ancheta, Ross and Mui have 21 appeared in this action. As a result, the Court issued a Discovery and Scheduling Order on January 22 17, 2014. The discovery deadline is currently June 16, 2014. 23 On May 8, 2014, Plaintiff filed a motion requesting a thirty-day extension of the June 16, 2014, 24 discovery deadline. Because of the proximity of the dates at issue, the Court deems the matter suitable 25 without an opposition pursuant to Local Rule 230(l). 26 27 Modification of the pretrial scheduling order requires a showing of good cause. Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4). “The schedule may be modified ‘if it cannot reasonably be met despite the diligence of the 28 1 1 party seeking the extension.’” Zivkovic v. Southern California Edison Co., 302 F.3d 1080, 1087 (9th 2 Cir. 2002) (quoting Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 607 (9th Cir. 1992)). “If 3 the party seeking the modification ‘was not diligent, the inquiry should end’ and the motion to modify 4 should not be granted.” Id. 5 6 7 8 Plaintiff states that he cannot complete discovery by May 16, 2014.1 Plaintiff states that he has served discovery on Defendants, but has not received a response. He also states that he has been transferred numerous times in the past two months and spent time in Administrative Segregation. As a result, Plaintiff has not had access to his property.2 9 10 The Court notes that on April 10, 2014, it granted Defendants’ request to extend time to respond to Plaintiff’s discovery to April 29, 2014. 11 12 The Court finds good cause to modify the Discovery and Scheduling Conference Order. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion is GRANTED. The Court sets the following deadlines for all parties3: 13 Discovery Cut-Off: Dispositive Motion Deadline: 14 July 16, 2014 September 15, 2014 15 16 IT IS SO ORDERED. 17 Dated: 18 /s/ Dennis May 12, 2014 L. Beck UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 19 20 21 22 23 24 1 25 It appears that Plaintiff means that he cannot serve all discovery by May 16, 2014, which would be thirty days prior to the June 16, 2014, deadline for filing motions to compel. 26 2 27 3 28 On May 8, 2014, the Court ordered Defendants to address the status of Plaintiff’s property within twenty-one days. By separate order, the Court has granted Defendant Ancheta an extension to July 31, 2014, to respond to Plaintiff’s discovery. The Court also extended the deadline to file motions to compel related to Defendant Ancheta’s discovery to September 2, 2014. 2

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?