Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_22-cv-00205/USCOURTS-caed-1_22-cv-00205-6/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

27

28

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

STANLEY V. WELLS,

Plaintiff,

v.

LIMA,

Defendant.

Case No. 1:22-cv-00205-KES-CDB (PC)

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S 

SECOND MOTION TO MODIFY THE 

DISCOVERY AND SCHEDULING ORDER

(Doc. 37) 

Stanley V. Wells is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil 

rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 

I. INTRODUCTION

The Court issued its Discovery and Scheduling Order on December 7, 2023. (Doc. 33.) 

Relevant here, the deadline for the filing of a dispositive motion was set for October 18, 2024. 

(Id.) 

On October 21, 2024, the Court issued its Order Granting Defendant’s Motion to Modify 

Nunc Pro Tunc the Discovery and Scheduling Order. (Doc. 36.) The dispositive motion filing 

deadline was extended from October 18, 2024, to December 17, 2024. (Id. at 3.) 

On December 13, 2024, Defendant Lima filed a second motion to modify the scheduling 

order. (Doc. 37.) The motion is supported by a memorandum of points and authorities (see Doc. 

37-1 at 1-3) and the Declaration of Patricia M. Kealy (id. at 4-5). 

Case 1:22-cv-00205-KES-CDB Document 38 Filed 12/16/24 Page 1 of 3
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

27

28

2

II. DISCUSSION

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

be modified only for good cause and with the judge's consent.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4). This 

good cause standard “primarily considers the diligence of the party seeking the amendment.” 

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

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

extension.” Id. If the party was not diligent, the inquiry should end. Id.

Here, Defendant contends good cause exists to grant the motion to modify the Discovery 

and Scheduling Order as defense counsel has worked diligently to thoroughly analyze the 

viability of a dispositive motion and to draft such a motion on Defendant Lima’s behalf. (Doc. 

37-1 at 2.) Defense counsel intends to cite to records in “non-party incarcerated individuals’” 

central files and is in the process of obtaining those records but requires more time. (Id.) Counsel 

states the Attorney General’s Office (AGO) was previously able to obtain those records through a 

request to the litigation coordinator at the incarcerated person’s institution, and the records would 

be provided after any necessary redactions, as would any supporting declarations. (Id. at 2-3.) 

However, recent policy changes implemented by the California Department of Corrections and 

Rehabilitation now require the AGO to subpoena those records, allowing for third-party 

objections or waiver of objections concerning production of incarcerated persons’ central files, 

medical records, and mental health records. (Id. at 3.) Thus, the new process requires additional 

time to complete. (Id.) Defendant requires additional time within which to ensure the necessary 

records are received and referenced in support of the summary judgment motion. (Id.) Defendant 

requests a 30-day extension of the dispositive motion filing deadline. (Id.)1

III. CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Accordingly, and for good cause shown, the Court ORDERS that:

1. Defendant’s motion to modify the scheduling order (Doc. 37) is GRANTED; and

2. The Discovery and Scheduling Order is MODIFIED to extend the deadline for filing 

1 Although Defendant’s notice of motion indicates he seeks a 14-day extension, the legal memorandum in support 

thereof and proposed order each refer to a 30-day extension. Cf (Doc. 37 with Doc. 37-1 & 37-2.)

Case 1:22-cv-00205-KES-CDB Document 38 Filed 12/16/24 Page 2 of 3
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

27

28

3

a dispositive motion from December 17, 2024, to January 16, 2025. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 16, 2024 ___________________ _

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:22-cv-00205-KES-CDB Document 38 Filed 12/16/24 Page 3 of 3