Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_04-cv-01798/USCOURTS-caed-2_04-cv-01798-11/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

KEITH M. CASSELLS,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-04-1798 FCD PAN P

vs.

D. MEHTA, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

Plaintiff is a state prisoner without counsel seeking relief pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 

§ 1983. Plaintiff moves to modify the scheduling order filed January 27, 2006, by extending the

time for discovery. Defendants oppose.

A schedule may be modified only upon a showing of good cause. Fed. R. Civ. P.

16(b). Good cause exists when the moving party demonstrates he cannot meet the deadline

despite exercising due diligence. Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 609 (9th

Cir. 1992). Pursuant to the scheduling order discovery closes May 26, 2006. 

Plaintiff asserts he receives insufficient time in the law library. But plaintiff has

served discovery requests and has sought orders compelling disclosure. He does not identify the

discovery he still must do but cannot complete by May 26.

/////

Case 2:04-cv-01798-FCD-EFB Document 55 Filed 04/18/06 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

2

Plaintiff fails to demonstrate he will not be able to complete discovery despite

exercising due diligence. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s April 4, 2006, motion for

extension to complete discovery is denied.

DATED: April 18, 2006.

\004

\cass1798. dny modif sched

Case 2:04-cv-01798-FCD-EFB Document 55 Filed 04/18/06 Page 2 of 2