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)

Download PDF
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

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?