Alvarez v. Hashemi

Filing 28

ORDER GRANTING 27 Defendant's Motion to Extend the Dispositive Motion Filing Deadline signed by Magistrate Judge Sheila K. Oberto on 8/8/2017. Dispositive Motions filed by 9/22/2017. (Jessen, A)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 9 RAUL ALVAREZ, 10 Plaintiff, 11 12 v. NASTRAN HASHEMI, 13 Defendant. Case No. 1:16-cv-00203-AWI-SKO (PC) ORDER MODIFYING SCHEDULING ORDER EXTENDING DEADLINE FOR DISPOSITIVE MOTIONS (Docs. 23, 27) Dispositive Motion Deadline: 09/22/2017 14 15 16 I. 17 Background Plaintiff, Raul Alvarez, a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed this 18 civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. ' 1983. Plaintiff filed this action on February 5, 2016, 19 and is proceeding on claims of deliberate indifference to Plaintiff's serious medical needs in 20 violation of the Eighth Amendment against Defendant, Nastran Hashemi. The current Discovery 21 and Scheduling Order issued on September 29, 2016, and set August 10, 2017, as the deadline for 22 filing dispositive motions. (Doc. 23.) On August 7, 2017, Defendant filed a motion requesting to 23 extend that deadline to September 22, 2017. (Doc. 27.) While the time for Plaintiff to file an 24 opposition has not yet lapsed, he will not be prejudiced by premature consideration of 25 Defendant’s motion as the extension granted herein is extended on his behalf as well. 26 /// 27 /// 28 // 1 1 II. Modification of Scheduling Order Federal Rule of Civil Procedure1 16(b) requires a party show “good cause” when seeking 2 3 to modify a scheduling order. Rule 16(b)’s good cause standard focuses primarily on the 4 diligence of the moving party, id., and the reasons for seeking modification, C.F. ex rel. Farnan 5 v. Capistrano Unified Sch. Dist., 654 F.3d 975, 984 (9th Cir.2011). If the party seeking to amend 6 the scheduling order fails to show due diligence, the inquiry should end and the court should not 7 grant the motion to modify. Zivkovic v. Southern California Edison, Co., 302 F.3d 1080, 1087 8 (9th Cir. 2002). Defendant’s motion shows that he has exercised due diligence, but has been 9 unable to prepare a dispositive motion in this case because of an upcoming, out of state trial and 10 new assignments due to the recent departure of another Deputy. This satisfies Rule 16(b)’s good 11 cause standard. 12 III. Order Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that: 13 (1) 14 August 7, 2017, (Doc. 27), is GRANTED; 15 (2) 16 the deadline for filing pre-trial dispositive motions is extended to September 22, 2017; and 17 (3) 18 other than the above modification of deadlines, all requirements of the September 9, 2016 Discovery and Scheduling Order, (Doc. 23), remain in 19 effect. 20 21 Defendant’s motion to extend the dispositive motion filing deadline, filed on IT IS SO ORDERED. 22 Dated: 23 August 8, 2017 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto . UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 24 25 26 27 1 28 The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure will be referred to as ARule *.@ Any reference to other statutory authorities shall so indicate. 2

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?