St. Ann v. McLean et al
Filing
86
OPINION and ORDER Denying 85 Motion for Extension of Time and Amendment of Scheduling Order. Signed by District Judge Judith E. Levy. (SBur)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
David St. Ann,
Plaintiff,
v.
Case No. 15-11770
Judith E. Levy
United States District Judge
McLean, et al.,
Mag. Judge Anthony P. Patti
Defendants.
________________________________/
OPINION AND ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR EXTENSION
OF TIME AND AMENDMENT OF SCHEDULING ORDER [85]
On February 27, 2019, attorney Jeahad Kadaf was assigned to
represent plaintiff David St. Ann in this matter. On June 10, 2019, St.
Ann filed a motion to remove counsel, which will be heard on August 19,
2019, at the same time as the final pretrial conference. (ECF Nos. 83, 84.)
Now, St. Ann seeks an extension of time and amendment of the
scheduling order, to allow him more time to prepare for trial as a selfrepresented litigant. (ECF No. 85.)
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(b)(4), “[a] schedule may
be modified only for good cause and with the judge’s consent.” “The
primary measure of Rule 16’s ‘good cause’ standard is the moving party’s
diligence in attempting to meet the case management order ’s
requirements.” Inge v. Rock Fin. Corp., 281 F.3d 613, 625 (6th Cir. 2002)
(internal quotation marks and citations omitted). Whether the opposing
party
will
suffer
significant
prejudice
is
also
an
important
consideration. See Leary v. Daeschner, 349 F.3d 888, 906–07 (6th Cir.
2003). Consent to modify a scheduling order is left to the sound discretion
of the district judge. Id. at 905–06.
St. Ann has not demonstrated good cause to modify the scheduling
order and trial date. This case was originally filed on May 15, 2015. (ECF
No. 1.) St. Ann proceeded as a self-represented litigant for nearly four
years until Mr. Kadaf was assigned to the case. St. Ann, when proceeding
pro se, did not demonstrate difficulty meeting deadlines throughout this
case. The record also shows that he diligently participated in discovery,
filed a dispositive motion and response to defendants’ dispositive motion,
sought out legal guidebooks and materials from Amazon and the law
library where he is incarcerated, and otherwise has taken diligent steps
throughout the years to prepare his case for trial.
2
St. Ann’s motion indicates that he seeks to adjourn the trial date
because he is receiving ongoing treatment to his left ear, and “may have
to undergo surgery… in the near future,” but neither his motion nor the
records he has attached indicate that surgery or any other medical
procedure is scheduled that would interfere with the trial date.
Accordingly, good cause has not been shown to modify the scheduling
order.
Meanwhile, this case has been pending against defendants since
2015, and the scheduling order in this case has been modified four times
already. (ECF. Nos. 40, 74, 79, 84.) Trial is set for September 3, 2019, at
8:30 a.m. and further delay is not warranted. Accordingly, St. Ann’s
motion for an amendment to the scheduling order is denied.
St. Ann is directed to review the Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16
and Eastern District of Michigan Local Rules 16.1’s requirements for
filing the final pretrial order. Also, St. Ann and defendants are directed
to this Court’s practice guidelines related to the final pretrial conference,
which are located at:
http://www.mied.uscourts.gov/index.cfm?pageFunction=chambers&judg
eid=44.
3
For the reasons set forth above, the Court DENIES St. Ann’s motion
for extension of time and amendment of scheduling order.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: July 16, 2019
Ann Arbor, Michigan
s/Judith E. Levy
JUDITH E. LEVY
United States District Judge
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
The undersigned certifies that the foregoing document was served
upon counsel of record and any unrepresented parties via the Court’s
ECF System to their respective email or First Class U.S. mail addresses
disclosed on the Notice of Electronic Filing on July 16, 2019.
s/Shawna Burns
SHAWNA BURNS
Case Manager
4
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?