Doster v. Beard et al
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)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
DAMIAN T. DOSTER,
ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO
MODIFY SCHEDULING ORDER
(ECF No. 57.)
JEFFREY A. BEARD, et al.,
New Dispositive Motions Deadline:
November 30, 2017
Damian T. Doster (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma
pauperis with this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This case now proceeds
with Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint filed on March 25, 2016, against defendants, Chief
Deputy Warden F. Vasquez, Yard Captain P. Llamas, Sgt. Sarah Leon, and Maintenance
Engineer Ric Pavich (collectively, “Defendants”), on Plaintiff’s claims for adverse conditions
of confinement under the Eighth Amendment and related negligence claims. (ECF No. 13.)
On July 31, 2017, Defendants filed a motion to modify the scheduling order to extend
the deadline for filing dispositive motions. (ECF No. 57.) Plaintiff has not filed an opposition.
MODIFICATION OF SCHEDULING ORDER
Modification of a scheduling order requires a showing of good cause, Fed. R. Civ. P.
16(b), and good cause requires a showing of due diligence, Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations,
Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 609 (9th Cir. 1992). To establish good cause, the party seeking the
modification of a scheduling order must generally show that even with the exercise of due
diligence, they cannot meet the requirement of the order. Id. The court may also consider the
prejudice to the party opposing the modification. Id. If the party seeking to amend the
scheduling order fails to show due diligence the inquiry should end and the court should not
grant the motion to modify. Zivkovic v. Southern California Edison, Co., 302 F.3d 1080, 1087
(9th Cir. 2002).
Defendants request a four-month extension of the deadline for filing dispositive motions
in an effort to allow the court to issue a final ruling on the pending summary judgment motion
and, to permit Defendants adequate time to prepare a merits based motion for summary
judgment. The current deadline for filing dispositive motions is July 31, 2017, which has
expired. (ECF No. 50.) Defendants have provided evidence that even with the exercise of due
diligence, they could not and cannot meet the current July 31, 2017, deadline. Therefore, the
court finds good cause to grant Defendants’ motion, extending the dispositive motions deadline
until November 30, 2017, for all parties to this action.
Good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
Defendants’ motion to modify the discovery and scheduling order, filed on July
31, 2017, is GRANTED; and
The deadline for filing dispositive motions is extended from July 31, 2017 to
November 30, 2017, for all parties to this action.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
August 31, 2017
/s/ Gary S. Austin
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
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?