Hunt v. Reyes et al

Filing 161

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Carolyn K. Delaney on 9/24/14 ORDERING that Plaintiffs motion to modify the scheduling order 157 is denied; and Plaintiffs motion for summary judgment 158 is denied as untimely. (Dillon, M)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

MICHAEL A. HUNT,

12

No. 2:08-cv-0181 MCE CKD P

Plaintiff,

13

v.

14

M. REYES, et al.,

15

ORDER

Defendants.

16
17
18

Trial in this pro se prisoner civil rights action is set for January 2015. (ECF No. 156.)

19

Before the court is plaintiff’s motion to modify the scheduling order so that plaintiff may pursue a

20

second motion for summary judgment against remaining defendant Rios. (ECF No. 157; see ECF

21

No. 86.) Plaintiff’s motion to modify is fully briefed. (ECF Nos. 159, 160.)

22

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(b), a scheduling order “may be modified

23

only for good cause and with the judge’s consent.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4). The “good cause”

24

standard “primarily considers the diligence of the party seeking the amendment.” Johnson v.

25

Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 609 (9th Cir. 1992). The district court may modify the

26

scheduling order “if it cannot reasonably be met despite the diligence of the party seeking the

27

extension.” Id.

28
1

1

Here, the court does not find good cause to modify the scheduling order. The matters that

2

plaintiff seeks to re-litigate on summary judgment are disputed issues of fact properly set for trial.

3

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:

4

1. Plaintiff’s motion to modify the scheduling order (ECF No. 157) is denied; and

5

2. Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 158) is denied as untimely.

6

Dated: September 24, 2014

_____________________________________
CAROLYN K. DELANEY
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

7
8
9
10
11
12

2 / hunt.0181.modify_2

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2