Reno Rios v. Gipson et al

Filing 58

ORDER granting 56 Motion for extension of time to file motion for exhaustion signed by Magistrate Judge Sheila K. Oberto on 9/1/2016. (Lundstrom, T)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

8
9
10

RENO RIOS,
Plaintiff,

11
v.

12
13

Case No. 1:12-cv-01334-LJO-SKO (PC)

GIPSON, et al.,

(Doc. 56)
Defendants.

14

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’
MOTION FOR AN EXTENSION OF TIME
TO FILE MOTION ON EXHAUSTION

THIRTY DAY DEADLINE

15
16
17

I.

18

Background
Plaintiff, Reno Rios, is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this

19

civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On March 19, 2015, the United States Court of

20

Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held that Plaintiff’s amended complaint, filed on June 13, 2013, sets

21

forth sufficient allegations to state claims for monetary damages arising from inadequate medical

22

treatment for his asthma, nerve pain, and dental issues.1 28 U.S.C. § 1915A; Fed. R. Civ. P. 8;

23

Colwell v. Bannister, 763 F.3d 1060, 1068 (9th Cir. 2014); Wilhelm v. Rotman, 680 F.3d 1113,

24

1116 (9th Cir. 2012). (Doc. 21.) Mandate issued on July 7, 2015. (Doc. 23.)

25
26

On August 31, 2016, Defendants filed a motion for extension of time, and request an
extension of thirty days from the ruling on their motion to file a motion for summary judgment on

27
28

1

(Doc. 12, Amend. Compl., ¶¶19-22, 25, 26, 29, 30-32, 48-64.)

1

1

exhaustion grounds. (Doc. 56.)

2

II.

Modification of Scheduling Order

3

Pursuant to F.R.Civ.P. 16(b)(3)(A), district courts must enter scheduling orders to

4

establish deadlines for, among other things, to file motions and complete discovery. AA schedule

5

may be modified only for good cause and with the judge=s consent.@ F.R.Civ.P. 16(b)(4). This

6

standard “primarily considers the diligence of the party seeking the amendment.” Johnson v.

7

Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 609 (9th Cir. 1992). However, there are a number of

8

factors that may be considered such as:

9

12

1) whether trial is imminent, 2) whether the request is opposed, 3) whether the
non-moving party would be prejudiced, 4) whether the moving party was diligent
in obtaining discovery within the guidelines established by the court, 5) the
foreseeability of the need for additional discovery in light of the time allowed for
discovery by the district court, and 6) the likelihood that the discovery will lead to
relevant evidence.

13

U.S. ex rel. Schumer v. Hughes Aircraft Co., 63 F.3d 1512, 1526 (9th Cir. 1995) vacated on other

14

grounds, 520 U.S. 939, 117 S. Ct. 1871 (1997) citing Smith v. United States, 834 F.2d 166, 169

15

(10th Cir.1987).

10
11

16

Here, trial is not imminent. While the time for Plaintiff to file an opposition to

17

Defendant’s motion for an extension of time has not yet lapsed, early consideration of

18

Defendant’s motion is appropriate because the new deadline will expire before the deadline for

19

filing an opposition and reply to this motion. Additionally, following remand from the Ninth

20

Circuit via mandate, Defendants’ request for additional time to determine which of the

21

Defendants were involved with the various aspects Plaintiff’s medical issues appears reasonable.

22

Although Defendants’ requested extension of time is granted, discovery on all issues shall remain

23

open as this aging case must move forward.

24

Defendants’ motion for extension of time implies that they intend to rely heavily, if not

25

exclusively, on the detailed requirements of section 3084.2 of Title 15 in any motion regarding

26

exhaustion. Any such motion will be subject to summary dismissal absent a showing that the

27

specific requirements of § 3084.0 et seq. were made known to Plaintiff at the time he filed any

28

inmate appeals which are attacked as insufficient. Ross v. Blake, 136 S. Ct. 1850, 1859 (2016)
2

1

(administrative remedies that are “essentially ‘unknowable’” are unavailable).

2

III.

3

Order
Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

4

(1)

Defendants’ motion to modify dates in the scheduling order, filed on August

5

31, 2016, is GRANTED and the Discovery and Scheduling Order is

6

MODIFIED as follows:
a.

7

the deadline for filing motions for summary judgment under

8

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56 for failure to exhaust

9

administrative remedies is extended to thirty days after the date of
service of this order;

10
b.

11
(2)

12

discovery shall remain open on all issues; and

other than the above modification of deadlines, all requirements of the

13

Discovery and Scheduling Order which issued on February 18, 2016, (Doc.

14

43), remain in effect.

15
16
17
18

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

September 1, 2016

/s/

Sheila K. Oberto

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3

.