Bulkin v. Ochoa et al

Filing 44

ORDER GRANTING Defendants' Request to Modify Scheduling Order 42 , signed by Magistrate Judge Dennis L. Beck on 2/1/16: Dispositive Motion Deadline RESET to May 6, 2016. (Hellings, J)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

8
9
10
11

KEITH BULKIN,

12

Plaintiff,

13

vs.

14

V. OCHOA, et al.,

15
16

Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No.: 1:13-cv-00388 DAD DLB PC
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’
REQUEST TO MODIFY SCHEDULING
ORDER
[ECF No. 42]
Dispositive Motion Deadline: May 6, 2016

17
18
19
20
21
22
23

Plaintiff Keith Bulkin is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this
civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
On January 6, 2016, Defendants filed a request to modify the discovery and scheduling
order. 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 party seeking the extension.’” Zivkovic v. Southern California Edison Co., 302

24
25
26
27

F.3d 1080, 1087 (9th Cir. 2002) (quoting Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604,
607 (9th Cir. 1992)). “If the party seeking the modification ‘was not diligent, the inquiry should
end’ and the motion to modify should not be granted.” Id.

28

1

1
2
3
4
5

Defendants state that good cause exists because a motion for summary judgment for
exhaustion is currently pending before the Court, and preparation of a motion for summary
judgment regarding the merits of Plaintiff’s claims could prove to be unnecessary. The Court
finds good cause to modify the scheduling order.
Accordingly, Defendants’ request to modify the Discovery and Scheduling Order is

6

GRANTED. The existing dispositive motion deadline is RESET to May 6, 2016.
7
8

IT IS SO ORDERED.

9
10

Dated:

/s/ Dennis

February 1, 2016

L. Beck

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

2