Mannings v. Palermo et al

Filing 28

ORDER GRANTING Defendants' 24 Motion to Modify Scheduling Order; ORDER EXTENDING Dispositive Motions Deadline For All Parties to This Action, signed by Magistrate Judge Gary S. Austin on 4/9/2015. New Dispositive Motions Deadline: 6/8/2015. (Marrujo, C)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 12 ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO MODIFY SCHEDULING ORDER (Doc. 24.) Plaintiff, 13 14 1:12-cv-02038-AWI-GSA-PC DEVON DION MANNINGS, vs. C/O PALERMO, et al., 15 ORDER EXTENDING DISPOSITIVE MOTIONS DEADLINE FOR ALL PARTIES TO THIS ACTION Defendants. 16 New Dispositive Motions Deadline: 06/08/15 17 18 19 I. BACKGROUND 20 Devon Dion Mannings (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with this civil 21 rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff filed the Complaint commencing this 22 action at the United States District Court for the Southern District of California on December 6, 23 2012. (Doc. 1.) The case was transferred to the Eastern District of California on December 13, 24 2012. (Doc. 4.) This action now proceeds with the original Complaint, against defendants 25 Palermo, Smith, and Tyler (“Defendants”) for use of excessive force in violation of the Eighth 26 Amendment.1 27 28 1 On February 27, 2014, the court issued an order dismissing all other claims and defendants from this action, based on Plaintiff’s failure to state a claim under § 1983. (Doc. 12.) 1 1 On May 29, 2014, the court issued a Scheduling Order establishing pretrial deadlines 2 for the parties, including a deadline of April 9, 2015 to file pretrial dispositive motions. (Doc. 3 17.) On April 8, 2015, defendants Palermo and Tyler filed a motion to extend the dispositive 4 motions deadline. (Doc. 24.) On April 8, 2015, defendant Smith filed a joinder to the motion. 5 (Doc. 27.) 6 II. MOTION TO MODIFY SCHEDULING ORDER 7 Modification of a scheduling order requires a showing of good cause, Fed. R. Civ. P. 8 16(b), and good cause requires a showing of due diligence, Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, 9 Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 609 (9th Cir. 1992). To establish good cause, the party seeking the 10 modification of a scheduling order must generally show that even with the exercise of due 11 diligence, they cannot meet the requirement of the order. Id. The court may also consider the 12 prejudice to the party opposing the modification. Id. If the party seeking to amend the 13 scheduling order fails to show due diligence the inquiry should end and the court should not 14 grant the motion to modify. Zivkovic v. Southern California Edison, Co., 302 F.3d 1080, 1087 15 (9th Cir. 2002). A party may obtain relief from the court=s deadline date for discovery by 16 demonstrating good cause for allowing further discovery. Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4). 17 Defendants seek an extension of the dispositive motions deadline for this case. 18 Defendants assert that they have diligently attempted to complete all the work in preparation of 19 filing a dispositive motion, but due to the complexities of the case, defense counsel’s other 20 obligations, and the need to substitute new counsel for defendant Smith, they will be unable to 21 meet the April 9, 2015 deadline. 22 The court finds good cause to extend the dispositive motions deadline in this action 23 until June 8, 2015. Thus, good cause appearing, Defendants’ motion to modify the Scheduling 24 Order shall be granted. 25 III. CONCLUSION 26 Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 27 1. 28 Defendants’ motion to modify the Court's Scheduling Order, filed on April 8, 2015, is GRANTED; 2 1 2. 2 3 The deadline for filing and serving pretrial dispositive motions is extended from April 9, 2015 to June 8, 2015 for all parties to this action; and 4. 4 All other provisions of the court's May 29, 2014 Scheduling Order remain the same. 5 6 7 8 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: April 9, 2015 /s/ Gary S. Austin UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 3

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?