Singleton v. Fortune et al

Filing 48

ORDER GRANTING 47 Motion to Modify Scheduling Order and ORDER EXTENDING Discovery Deadline and Deadline to File Dispositive Motions for All Parties signed by Magistrate Judge Gary S. Austin on 8/6/2017. Discovery due by 10/30/2017. Dispositive Motions filed by 12/29/2017. (Jessen, A)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

LAMAR SINGLETON, SR.,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14

vs.
DR. FORTUNE, et al.,

15

Defendants.

16

1:17-cv-00124-DAD-GSA-PC
ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO
MODIFY SCHEDULING ORDER
(ECF No. 47.)
ORDER EXTENDING DISCOVERY
DEADLINE AND DEADLINE TO FILE
DISPOSITIVE MOTIONS FOR ALL
PARTIES
New Discovery Deadline:

17

10/30/17

New Dispositive Motions Deadline: 12/29/17

18
19
20

I.

BACKGROUND

21

Lamar Singleton, Jr., (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma

22

pauperis in this civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This case now proceeds

23

with the First Amended Complaint filed on February 19, 2016, against defendant Fortune

24

(“Defendant”) on Plaintiff’s medical claim pursuant to the Eighth Amendment. (ECF No. 25.)

25

On March 17, 2017, the court issued a Discovery and Scheduling Order establishing

26

pretrial deadlines for the parties, including a deadline of August 17, 2017, for the parties to

27

complete discovery, including the filing of motions to compel, and a deadline of October 16,

28

2017, for the filing of pretrial dispositive motions. (ECF No. 43.)
1

1

On June 21, 2017, Plaintiff filed a motion to modify the scheduling order to extend the

2

discovery deadline for sixty days. (ECF No. 47.) Defendant has not opposed the motion.

3

II.

MOTION TO MODIFY SCHEDULING ORDER

4

Modification of a scheduling order requires a showing of good cause, Fed. R. Civ. P.

5

16(b), and good cause requires a showing of due diligence, Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations,

6

Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 609 (9th Cir. 1992). To establish good cause, the party seeking the

7

modification of a scheduling order must generally show that even with the exercise of due

8

diligence, they cannot meet the requirement of the order. Id. The court may also consider the

9

prejudice to the party opposing the modification. Id. If the party seeking to amend the

10

scheduling order fails to show due diligence the inquiry should end and the Court should not

11

grant the motion to modify. Zivkovic v. Southern California Edison, Co., 302 F.3d 1080, 1087

12

(9th Cir. 2002).

13

Plaintiff requests a sixty-day extension of the deadline to complete discovery, due to

14

medical issues and lack of access to his legal documents. Plaintiff declares that his medical

15

condition, a tumor on his kidney, has been causing him severe pain, and that he is awaiting a

16

second opinion from the oncologist about his treatment. The court finds that Plaintiff has

17

shown that even with the exercise of due diligence, he cannot meet the discovery deadline

18

established in the court’s Discovery and Scheduling Order. Therefore, the court finds good

19

cause to extend the discovery deadline and the dispositive motions deadlines for all parties to

20

this action.

21

Good cause appearing, the discovery deadline shall be extended to October 30, 2017,

22

for all parties to this action, and the dispositive motions deadlines shall be extended to

23

December 29, 2017, for all parties to this action. Any further requests for extension of

24

deadlines should be filed before the expiration of the existing deadlines.

25

III.

CONCLUSION

26

Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

27

1.

28

Plaintiff’s motion to modify the court’s Discovery and Scheduling Order, filed
on June 21, 2017, is GRANTED;
2

1
2

///
2.

The deadline for the completion of discovery, including the filing of motions to

3

compel, is extended from August 17, 2017, to October 30, 2017, for all parties

4

to this action;

5

3.

6
7

The deadline for filing and serving pretrial dispositive motions is extended from
October 16, 2017, to December 29, 2017, for all parties to this action; and

4.

8

All other provisions of the Court’s March 17, 2017, Discovery and Scheduling
Order remain the same.

9
10
11
12

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

August 6, 2017

/s/ Gary S. Austin
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3