Watkins v. Greenwood, et al.

Filing 46

ORDER Denying Plaintiff's 33 Motion to Amend the Scheduling Order, signed by Magistrate Judge Stanley A. Boone on 8/7/17. (Gonzalez, R)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

CASEY WATKINS,

14
15

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION
TO AMEND THE SCHEDULING ORDER

Plaintiff,

12
13

Case No. 1:16-cv-00850-LJO-SAB

v.
(ECF Nos. 33, 37)
CHAD GREENWOOD, et al.,
Defendants.

16
17

Plaintiff Casey Watkins is appearing pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights

18 action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On July 5, 2017, Plaintiff filed a motion requesting that the
19 scheduling order be extended. (ECF No. 33.) On July 13, 2017, Defendant Sims filed an
20 opposition to Plaintiff’s motion to amend the scheduling order. (ECF No. 37.)
21

Plaintiff seeks to amend the discovery and scheduling order so that he can obtain counsel

22 in this action. Plaintiff also notes that he is unable to make copies of any documents that need to
23 be sent to Defendants and their counsel because California Men’s Colony does not consider
24 personal correspondence to attorneys and public officials to be legal court rules material for the
25 purposes of the legal photocopying service. Pursuant to the scheduling order, the deadline to
26 amend the complaint is September 15, 2017, and discovery does not close until November 15,
27 2017. The Court finds Plaintiff has not demonstrated good cause to amend the scheduling order
28 at this time. Plaintiff filed this action on June 20, 2016, and the scheduling order issued on

1

1 March 15, 2017. Plaintiff has had approximately a year since this action was filed and four
2 months since the scheduling order issued to obtain representation had he desired to do so. If
3 Plaintiff obtains representation prior to the expiration of the deadlines in the scheduling order,
4 counsel can seek to amend the scheduling order at that time. However, Plaintiff is advised that
5 he is required to comply with the current scheduling order; and the Court will not find good
6 cause to extend any deadlines due to Plaintiff’s inaction in prosecuting this matter. In other
7 words, Plaintiff is required to conduct discovery and move this matter forward, even if he is
8 proceeding pro se.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion to amend the scheduling

9

10 order (ECF No. 33) is DENIED.
11
12

IT IS SO ORDERED.

13 Dated:

August 7, 2017
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

2