Reno Rios v. Gipson et al

Filing 87

ORDER EXTENDING the Dispositive Motion Filing Deadline; Deadline: February 2, 2018 signed by Magistrate Judge Sheila K. Oberto on 11/13/2017. (Sant Agata, S)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

8
9
10

RENO RIOS,

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

11
12
13

ORDER EXTENDING THE DISPOSITIVE
MOTION FILING DEADLINE

v.
GIPSON, et al.,

(Doc. 86)
Defendants.

14

DEADLINE: February 2, 2018

15
16
17

I.

Background

18

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, which he filed on August 16, 2012. (Doc. 1.)

20

Upon screening, the action was dismissed for failure to state a claim and judgment was entered on

21

April 9, 2014. (Docs. 14, 15.) Appeal was taken, resulting in reversal in part and remand. (Docs.

22

21, 23.)

23

On November 9, 2017, Defendants filed a motion seeking to extend the deadline for filing

24

dispositive motions. (Doc. 86.) Because Defendants have shown good cause, their motion is

25

granted and the Discovery and Scheduling Order is modified.

26

///

27

//

28
1

1

II.

2

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

3

establish deadlines for, among other things, filing of motions and completion of discovery. “A

4

schedule may be modified only for good cause and with the judge’s consent.” F.R.Civ.P.

5

16(b)(4). This standard “primarily considers the diligence of the party seeking the amendment.”

6

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

7

number of factors that may be considered such as:

8

11

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.

12

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

13

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

14

(10th Cir.1987).

9
10

15

Defendants request an extension of the dispositive motion deadline because current

16

counsel was recently reassigned to work exclusively on the Coleman class action, which is

17

ongoing, and due to the number of defendants, claims, and upcoming holidays, it will be

18

impossible to organize and prepare a dispositive motion by the current December 1, 2017

19

deadline. (Doc. 86.)
Trial is not imminent. While the time for filing oppositions to Defendants’ motion has not

20
21

yet lapsed, early consideration of the motion is appropriate as the extension applies to all parties

22

to this action. The current posture of this case is the result of a remand from the Ninth Circuit via

23

mandate resulting in the need for clarification of the parameters of Plaintiff’s remaining claims.1

24

While Defendants’ requested extension of time to file a motion raising exhaustion issues is

25

1

26
27
28

On March 19, 2015, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held that Plaintiff’s amended
complaint, filed on June 13, 2013, sets forth sufficient allegations to state claims for monetary damages arising out of
inadequate medical treatment for his asthma, nerve pain, and dental issues as stated in paragraphs 19-22, 25, 26, 29,
30-32, 48-64 of the Amended Complaint (Doc. 12). 28 U.S.C. § 1915A; Fed. R. Civ. P. 8; Colwell v. Bannister, 763
F.3d 1060, 1068 (9th Cir. 2014); Wilhelm v. Rotman, 680 F.3d 1113, 1116 (9th Cir. 2012). (Doc. 21.) Mandate
issued on July 7, 2015. (Doc. 23.)

2

1

granted, no other deadlines are affected. However, due to the age of this case and the fact that

2

this deadline has previously been extended, further motions for extensions will be viewed with

3

disfavor.

4

III.

5

Order
Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:
(1)

6

Defendants’ motion to modify the dispositive motion filing deadline, filed on
November 9, 2017, (Doc. 86), is GRANTED;

7
8

(2)

the deadline to file dispositive motions is extended to February 2, 2018; and

9

(3)

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

10

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

11

43), remain in effect.

12
13

IT IS SO ORDERED.

14

Dated:

15

November 13, 2017

/s/

Sheila K. Oberto

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

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

.