(PC) Heyligar v. Jones et al

Filing 31

ORDER and REVISED SCHEDULING ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Chi Soo Kim on 8/27/2024 GRANTING 24 Motion for Extension of Time, as modified by 27 Supplemental Brief. The discovery deadline is CONTINUED to 11/19/2024. The pretrial motions deadline is CONTINUED to 2/11/2025. In all other respects, the 23 Discovery and Scheduling Order remains in effect. 29 Request for Settlement Conference is DENIED without prejudice. (Huang, H)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

ARLINGTON ANSELMO HEYLIGAR,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14

No. 2:23-cv-1899 CSK P

v.

ORDER AND REVISED SCHEDULING
ORDER

JONES, et al.,

15

Defendant.

16
Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis. Defendants filed an

17
18

ex parte application for a first extension of time to complete discovery and file a dispositive

19

motion. Defendants initially requested that the deadlines be extended by ninety days, but

20

subsequently amended their request to seek sixty days. After further briefing from the parties, the

21

Court grants defendants’ request for a sixty day extension of the discovery and pretrial motions

22

deadlines.

23

I.

24

BACKGROUND
Plaintiff, who identifies as transgender, filed this action on September 5, 2023. (ECF No.

25

1.) This action proceeds on plaintiff’s claims that on July 10, 2022, defendants T. Jones, E.

26

Corter, and O. Beltran used excessive force (Claim I), and defendant Richards was deliberately

27

indifferent to plaintiff’s serious medical and mental health needs (Claim II), all in violation of the

28

Eighth Amendment. (ECF No. 1.)
1

1

On May 28, 2024, the Court issued a Discovery and Scheduling Order, setting the

2

discovery deadline for September 20, 2024, and the pretrial motions deadline for December 13,

3

2024. (ECF No. 23.)

4

On July 31, 2024, defendants filed an ex parte motion to extend the deadlines by ninety

5

days. (ECF No. 24.) On August 2, 2024, the Court issued a further briefing order. (ECF No.

6

25.)

7

On August 9, 2024, new counsel for defendants, a Supervising Deputy Attorney General,

8

filed a Notice of Appearance. (ECF No. 26.) That same day, new counsel for defendants filed a

9

supplemental brief regarding the application for extension of time. (ECF No. 27.) Defendants

10

state that while prior counsel had drafted interrogatories and requests for production of

11

documents, such written discovery was not served because the July 22, 2024 deadline to serve

12

written discovery had expired. (ECF No. 27 at 2.) Defendants now state that only an additional

13

sixty day extension is required to complete discovery and prepare a dispositive motion, rather

14

than the ninety days previously sought. (Id. at 3.) Defendants ask the Court to extend the

15

discovery deadline to November 19, 2024, and the dispositive motions deadline to February 11,

16

2025. (Id.)

17

Plaintiff filed an opposition to defendants’ motion on August 14, 2024. (ECF No. 29.)

18

Plaintiff claims she opposes defendants’ motion, but plaintiff does not address defendants’ motion

19

or address whether she has engaged in discovery. (Id.) Rather, plaintiff focuses on her current

20

conditions of confinement, expressing concern for her safety and missing property, but confirms

21

she filed an emergency administrative appeal, has been assigned to a higher level of mental health

22

care, and requests an immediate settlement conference. (Id. at 2.)

23

On August 14, 2024, a different Deputy Attorney General filed a Notice of Change of

24

Designation of Counsel for Service. (ECF No. 28.) On August 20, 2024, defendants’ different

25

counsel filed a reply. (ECF No. 30.) Defendants point out that plaintiff “focuses on recent

26

unrelated events which are not the subject of this lawsuit.” (Id. at 2.) Defendants argues that

27

plaintiff did not dispute that good cause exists to support defendants’ motion or argue that she

28

will be prejudiced by the delay. (Id. at 2.) Defendants contend that they will be prejudiced if
2

1

their first request to modify the scheduling deadlines is denied, and state that “due to

2

unpredictable circumstances, a new counsel has been assigned and endeavors to diligently defend

3

the case.” (Id. at 2.) “Defendants appreciate the Court’s consideration of their application to

4

extend the current discovery and dispositive deadlines,” and now that new counsel has been

5

assigned, reiterate their request that the deadlines be extended by sixty days: November 19, 2024

6

for the discovery deadline and February 11, 2025, for the dispositive motions deadline. (Id. at 3.)

7

II.

8

GOVERNING STANDARDS
“The district court is given broad discretion in supervising the pretrial phase of litigation.”

9

Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 607 (9th Cir. 1992) (citation and internal

10

quotation marks omitted). Rule 16(b) provides that “[a] schedule may be modified only for good

11

cause and with the judge’s consent.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4). “The schedule may be modified

12

‘if it cannot reasonably be met despite the diligence of the party seeking the extension.’”

13

Zivkovic v. Southern California Edison Co., 302 F.3d 1080, 1087 (9th Cir. 2002) (quoting

14

Johnson, 975 F.2d at 607).

15

III.

DISCUSSION
Considering the parties’ further briefing, as well as the reduction in the time requested by

16
17

defendants, the Court finds good cause to modify the scheduling order by extending the

18

deadlines. New defense counsel has been assigned which supports defendants’ first motion to

19

extend the discovery and pretrial motions deadline. That said, the Court is not inclined to extend

20

such deadlines in the future. The parties should propound their written discovery forthwith.
As noted by defendants, plaintiff’s claims concerning issues with her current conditions of

21
22

confinement are not related to the July 10, 2022 incident at issue herein. Defendants did not

23

address plaintiff’s request for a settlement conference. However, the Court granted defendants’

24

earlier request to opt out of the early settlement project. (ECF No. 21.) In addition, because

25

defendants’ counsel anticipates filing a dispositive motion, scheduling a settlement conference at

26

this juncture is premature. Plaintiff may renew her request for a settlement conference following

27

resolution of dispositive motions, if appropriate.

28

///
3

1

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

2

1.

3

Defendants’ motion for extension of time to complete discovery and file a dispositive
motion (ECF No. 24), as modified on August 9, 2024 (ECF No. 27), is granted.

4

2. The discovery deadline is continued to November 19, 2024.

5

3. The pretrial motions deadline is continued to February 11, 2025.

6

4. In all other respects, the Discovery and Scheduling Order (ECF No. 23) remains in

7
8

effect.
5.

9

Plaintiff’s request for settlement conference (ECF No. 29) is denied without
prejudice.

10
11

Dated: August 27, 2024

12
13
14

/1/heyl1899.16b

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4