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)

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