Baker v. Cacoa et al

Filing 63

ORDER DENYING 62 Plaintiff's Motion Requesting Court to Modify the Scheduling Order signed by Magistrate Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe on 4/3/2018. (Jessen, A)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

MIKE BAKER,

12

Plaintiff,

13

v.

14

S. CACOA, et al.,

15
16
17

Defendants.

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

Case No.: 1:15-cv-00693-AWI-BAM (PC)
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION
REQUESTING COURT TO MODIFY THE
SCHEDULING ORDER
(ECF No. 62)

18
19

Plaintiff Mike Baker is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil

20

rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Non-exhaustion discovery is stayed in this matter due to

21

Defendants’ pending motion for summary judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56 for the

22

failure to exhaust administrative remedies, filed on March 16, 2018. (ECF Nos. 58, 61.)

23

Currently before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion requesting that the Court modify the

24

scheduling order, filed on April 2, 2018. (ECF No. 62.) Plaintiff states that “to be cautious,” he seeks

25

an extension of the deadline to amend the pleadings in case discovery on non-exhaustion matters

26

requires him to amend his complaint using new information discovered.

27

As Plaintiff’s motion is speculative, good cause is not shown to modify the discovery and

28

scheduling order, and his request is denied. Plaintiff is not precluded from filing a motion seeking
1

1

leave to amend based on newly discovered evidence, if such a motion is necessary, in the future. The

2

Court takes no position on any such motion at this time.

3
4

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion requesting Court modify the scheduling order, filed on April 2,
2018 (ECF No. 62) is HEREBY DENIED.

5
6
7
8

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

/s/ Barbara

April 3, 2018

A. McAuliffe

_

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2