Henry v. Cate et al

Filing 55

ORDER MODIFYING the Discovery and Scheduling Order -- Vacating Dates Until Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment on the Issue of Exhaustion is Ruled On, signed by Magistrate Judge Sheila K. Oberto on 1/19/16. (Marrujo, C)

1
2
3
4
5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

6

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

7
8
9

Case No. 1:14-cv-00791-LJO-SKO (PC)
KENNETH R. HENRY,
Plaintiff,

10
v.

11
12

ORDER MODIFYING THE DISCOVERY AND
SCHEDULING ORDER -- VACATING DATES
UNTIL DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR
SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE ISSUE OF
EXHAUSTION IS RULED ON

D. CONTRERAS, et al.,
(Doc. 53)
Defendants.

13
14
15
16
17
18

I.

Background
Plaintiff Kenneth Henry, a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed

this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on May 23, 2014.

19

On September 1, 2015, Defendants Contreras, Jolly, and Ortega filed motions for

20

summary judgment based on Plaintiff’s failure to exhaust available administrative remedies prior

21

to filing suit which Defendant Ortega joined. (Docs. 33, 34.) Plaintiff requested and received a

22

number of extensions of time to file his opposition. (Docs. 38-40, 45-48.) Defendants filed their

23

reply briefs. (Docs. 49-51.) While the motions have been deemed submitted, L.R. 230(l), they

24

have not been ruled on. On January 15, 2016, Defendants Contreras and Jolly filed a motion,

25
26
27
28

which Defendant Ortega joined, to modify the Discovery and Scheduling Order to vacate the
current discovery deadline (February 1, 2016) and the dispositive motion filing deadline (April
11, 2016) to be reset if their pending motion does not dispose of the action. (Doc. 53.) This
modification will not prejudice either party to this action since both sides have been allowed to

1

1

conduct discovery thus far and a new Discovery and Scheduling Order will issue, re-opening

2

discovery and setting a new dispositive motion filing deadline if the exhaustion issue is not

3

dispositive.

4

II.

Modification of Scheduling Order
A party seeking leave of court to amend the schedule of a case must satisfy Federal Rule

5
6

of Civil Procedure1 16(b)'s “good cause” standard. The good cause standard of Rule 16(b)

7

focuses primarily on the diligence of the moving party, id., and the reasons for seeking

8

modification, C.F. ex rel. Farnan v. Capistrano Unified Sch. Dist., 654 F.3d 975, 984 (9th

9

Cir.2011). If the party seeking to amend the scheduling order fails to show due diligence, the

10

inquiry should end and the court should not grant the motion to modify. Zivkovic v. Southern

11

California Edison, Co., 302 F.3d 1080, 1087 (9th Cir. 2002).
Here, Defendants have exercised due diligence. The Discovery and Scheduling Order

12
13

issued on June 1, 2015. (Doc. 21.) On September 1, 2015, Defendants file their motions for

14

summary judgment based on Plaintiff’s asserted failure to exhaust administrative remedies prior

15
16
17

to filing suit. (Doc. 33.) The date for completion of discovery is rapidly approaching, but the
Court’s caseload has not allowed for the ruling on their motions.
III.

A district court has the inherent power to stay its proceedings, or any portion thereof.

18
19
20
21
22
23
24

Stay of Proceedings

This power to stay is “incidental to the power inherent in every court to control the disposition of
the causes on its docket with economy of time and effort for itself, for counsel, and for litigants.”
Landis v. North American Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254 (1936); see also Gold v. Johns–Manville Sales
Corp., 723 F.2d 1068, 1077 (3d Cir.1983) (holding that the power to stay proceedings comes
from the power of every court to manage the cases on its docket and to ensure a fair and efficient
adjudication of the matter at hand). This is best accomplished by the “exercise of judgment,
which must weigh competing interests and maintain an even balance.” Landis, 299 U.S. at 254–

25
55. In determining whether a stay is warranted, courts consider the potential prejudice to the non26
moving party; the hardship or inequity to the moving party if the action is not stayed; and the
27
1

28

The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure will hereinafter be referred to as ARule *.@ Any reference to other statutory
authorities shall so indicate.

2

1

judicial resources that would be saved by simplifying the case or avoiding duplicative litigation if

2

the case before the court is stayed. CMAX, Inc. v. Hall, 300 F.2d 265, 268 (9th Cir.1962). The

3

Ninth Circuit “has sustained or authorized in principle Landis stays on several occasions.”

4

Lockyer v. Mirant Corp., 398 F.3d 1098, 1110 (9th Cir.2005).
If Defendants’ motion for summary judgment on Plaintiff’s exhaustion efforts is granted,

5
6

this case will be dismissed. As such, it is reasonable to stay all actions in this case until

7

Defendants motions for summary judgment are ruled on.

8

IV.

Order
Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that Defendants’ motion to modify the Discovery

9
10

and Scheduling Order to vacate all dates until Defendants’ motions for summary judgment on

11

exhaustion are ruled on, filed on January 15, 2016, (Doc. 53), is GRANTED and the Discovery

12

and Scheduling Order is MODIFIED. All current deadlines are vacated and a new discovery and

13

scheduling order will issue if Defendants’ pending motions for summary judgment on exhaustion

14

are not dispositive of this action.

15

IT IS SO ORDERED.

16
Dated:
17

January 19, 2016

/s/ Sheila K. Oberto
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

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