Harris v. German et al
Filing
54
ORDER Granting Plaintiff's 32 Motion to Modify Scheduling Order and Motion for Extension of Time to File Responses to Defendants' Motion to Compel and Motion for Summary Judgment; Sixty-Day Deadline For Plaintiff to File Response to Defen dants' Motion to Compel 38 ; Sixty-Day Deadline for Plaintiff to File Opposition or Notice of Non-Opposition to Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment 44 , signed by Magistrate Judge Gary S. Austin on 12/21/18. New Discovery Deadline: 1/29/2019. New Dispositive Motions Deadline: 3/30/2019. (Gonzalez, R)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
DEVONTE HARRIS,
12
Plaintiff,
13
14
vs.
HUMBERTO GERMAN, et al.,
15
Defendants.
16
1:15-cv-01462-DAD-GSA-PC
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION TO MODIFY SCHEDULING
ORDER AND MOTION FOR EXTENSION
OF TIME TO FILE RESPONSES TO
DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO COMPEL
AND MOTION FOR SUMMARY
JUDGMENT
(ECF No. 32.)
SIXTY-DAY DEADLINE FOR PLAINTIFF
TO FILE RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS’
MOTION TO COMPEL
(ECF No. 38.)
17
18
19
SIXTY-DAY DEADLINE FOR PLAINTIFF
TO FILE OPPOSITION OR NOTICE OF
NON-OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’
MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
(ECF No. 44.)
20
21
22
New discovery deadline: 01/29/2019
23
New dispositive motions deadline: 03/30/2019
24
25
I.
BACKGROUND
26
Devonte Harris (“Plaintiff”) is a prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with
27
this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This case now proceeds with the First
28
Amended Complaint filed by Plaintiff on March 14, 2016, against defendants Correctional
1
Officer (C/O) Humberto German, C/O Philip Holguin, and C/O R. Bunitzki (collectively,
2
“Defendants”), for use of excessive force in violation of the Eighth Amendment; and, against
3
defendant C/O Philip Holguin for retaliation in violation of the First Amendment. (ECF No.
4
8.)
5
On September 13, 2018, the court issued an order requiring Plaintiff to respond to
6
Defendants’ motion to compel of August 16, 2018, within sixty days. (ECF No. 42.) To date,
7
Plaintiff has not filed a response to the motion to compel, and the sixty-day deadline has
8
expired.
9
On September 21, 2018, the court issued a modified Scheduling Order setting out
10
deadlines for the parties, including a discovery deadline of November 30, 2018, and a
11
dispositive motions deadline of January 30, 2019. (ECF No. 43.)
12
On November 16, 2018, the court issued an order requiring Plaintiff to file an
13
opposition or notice of non-opposition to Defendants’ motion for summary judgment of
14
October 15, 2018, within sixty days. (ECF No. 47.) The sixty-day deadline is pending.
15
On November 19, 2018, Plaintiff filed a motion to modify the scheduling order and for
16
an extension of time to file responses to Defendants’ motion to compel and motion for
17
summary judgment. (ECF No. 48.) Defendants have not filed an opposition to Plaintiff’s
18
motion.
19
II.
MOTION TO MODIFY SCHEDULING ORDER
20
Modification of a scheduling order requires a showing of good cause, Fed. R. Civ. P.
21
16(b), and good cause requires a showing of due diligence, Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations,
22
Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 609 (9th Cir. 1992). To establish good cause, the party seeking the
23
modification of a scheduling order must generally show that even with the exercise of due
24
diligence, they cannot meet the requirement of the order. Id. The Court may also consider the
25
prejudice to the party opposing the modification. Id. If the party seeking to amend the
26
scheduling order fails to show due diligence the inquiry should end and the Court should not
27
grant the motion to modify. Zivkovic v. Southern California Edison, Co., 302 F.3d 1080, 1087
28
(9th Cir. 2002).
1
Plaintiff requests an extension of the discovery deadline from November 30, 2018, to
2
January 29, 2019, and an extension of the dispositive motions deadline from January 30, 2019,
3
to March 30, 2019. Plaintiff declares that he is unable to meet these two deadlines because on
4
October 9, 2018, he was transferred from Corcoran State Prison (CSP-Cor) to California State
5
Prison-Sacramento (CSP-Sac) for an upcoming court date of October 12, 2018, and he was not
6
allowed to bring his property with him. (Plaintiff’s Declaration, ECF No. 48 at 2 ¶¶ 4, 5.) The
7
court date was postponed and finally took place on October 31, 2018, but Plaintiff has not been
8
transferred back to CSP-Cor, or received his property. (Id. ¶¶ 6, 7.) Plaintiff contacted his
9
prison correctional counselor and the property officer at CSP-Sac with a request to either
10
expedite his transfer back to CSP-Cor, or obtain his property from CSP-Cor. This request was
11
without success. (Id. ¶ 9.) Therefore, Plaintiff does not have his legal materials and has been
12
unable to pursue discovery. (Id. ¶ 8.) These matters are out of Plaintiff’s control. (Id. ¶ 11.)
13
The court finds good cause to modify the court’s Scheduling Order to extend the
14
discovery and dispositive motions deadlines as requested by Plaintiff. Plaintiff has submitted
15
evidence showing that he was diligent in attempting to gain access to his legal property in time
16
to meet the court’s deadlines but was unable to do so. Defendants have not opposed Plaintiff’s
17
motion. Therefore, Plaintiff’s motion to modify the Scheduling Order shall be granted.
18
III.
“When an act may or must be done within a specified time, the court may, for good
19
20
MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME
cause, extend the time.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b)(1).
21
Plaintiff requests a sixty-day extension of time to file responses to Defendants’ motion
22
to compel (ECF No. 38) and motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 44). Defendants have
23
not opposed Plaintiff’s motion for extension of time. Good cause having been presented to the
24
court and good cause appearing therefor, Plaintiff’s motion for extension of time shall be
25
granted.
26
///
27
///
28
///
1
IV.
CONCLUSION
2
Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
3
1.
Plaintiff’s motion to modify the court’s September 21, 2018, Scheduling Order,
4
and to extend time to file responses to Defendants’ motion to compel and
5
motion for summary judgment, filed on November 29, 2018, is GRANTED;
6
2.
Plaintiff is GRANTED an extension of time until sixty days from the date of
7
service of this order, in which to file a response to Defendants’ motion to
8
compel of August 16, 2018;
9
3.
Plaintiff is GRANTED an extension of time until sixty days from the date of
10
service of this order, in which to file an opposition or notice of non-opposition
11
to Defendants’ motion for summary judgment of October 15, 2018;
12
4.
13
14
to January 29, 2019, for all parties to this action;
5.
15
16
The deadline for completion of discovery is extended from November 30, 2018,
The deadline for filing dispositive motions is extended from January 30, 2019,
to March 30, 2019, for all parties to this action; and
6.
17
All other provisions of the court's September 21, 2018 Scheduling Order remain
the same.
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:
December 21, 2018
/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?