Doster v. Beard et al

Filing 59

ORDER GRANTING 57 Motion to Modify Scheduling Order, signed by Magistrate Judge Gary S. Austin on 8/31/17. New Dispositive Motions Deadline: November 30, 2017. (Marrujo, C)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11
12

Plaintiff,

13
14

1:15-cv-01415-DAD-GSA-PC

DAMIAN T. DOSTER,

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO
MODIFY SCHEDULING ORDER
(ECF No. 57.)

vs.
JEFFREY A. BEARD, et al.,

15

New Dispositive Motions Deadline:
November 30, 2017

Defendants.

16
17

I.

BACKGROUND

18

Damian T. Doster (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma

19

pauperis with this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This case now proceeds

20

with Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint filed on March 25, 2016, against defendants, Chief

21

Deputy Warden F. Vasquez, Yard Captain P. Llamas, Sgt. Sarah Leon, and Maintenance

22

Engineer Ric Pavich (collectively, “Defendants”), on Plaintiff’s claims for adverse conditions

23

of confinement under the Eighth Amendment and related negligence claims. (ECF No. 13.)

24

On July 31, 2017, Defendants filed a motion to modify the scheduling order to extend

25

the deadline for filing dispositive motions. (ECF No. 57.) Plaintiff has not filed an opposition.

26

II.

MODIFICATION OF SCHEDULING ORDER

27

Modification of a scheduling order requires a showing of good cause, Fed. R. Civ. P.

28

16(b), and good cause requires a showing of due diligence, Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations,
1

1

Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 609 (9th Cir. 1992). To establish good cause, the party seeking the

2

modification of a scheduling order must generally show that even with the exercise of due

3

diligence, they cannot meet the requirement of the order. Id. The court may also consider the

4

prejudice to the party opposing the modification. Id. If the party seeking to amend the

5

scheduling order fails to show due diligence the inquiry should end and the court should not

6

grant the motion to modify. Zivkovic v. Southern California Edison, Co., 302 F.3d 1080, 1087

7

(9th Cir. 2002).

8

Defendants request a four-month extension of the deadline for filing dispositive motions

9

in an effort to allow the court to issue a final ruling on the pending summary judgment motion

10

and, to permit Defendants adequate time to prepare a merits based motion for summary

11

judgment. The current deadline for filing dispositive motions is July 31, 2017, which has

12

expired. (ECF No. 50.) Defendants have provided evidence that even with the exercise of due

13

diligence, they could not and cannot meet the current July 31, 2017, deadline. Therefore, the

14

court finds good cause to grant Defendants’ motion, extending the dispositive motions deadline

15

until November 30, 2017, for all parties to this action.

16

III.

CONCLUSION

17

Good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

18

1.

19
20

Defendants’ motion to modify the discovery and scheduling order, filed on July
31, 2017, is GRANTED; and

2.

21

The deadline for filing dispositive motions is extended from July 31, 2017 to
November 30, 2017, for all parties to this action.

22
23
24
25

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

August 31, 2017

/s/ Gary S. Austin
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

26
27
28
2