Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_09-cv-00127/USCOURTS-caed-1_09-cv-00127-8/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ORLANDO PAYNE, 1:09-cv-00127-AWI-GSA-PC

Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING REQUEST TO 

VACATE DISPOSITIVE MOTIONS

vs. DEADLINE

A. HEDGPETH, et al., (Doc. 41.)

Defendants. Dispositive MotionsDeadline - VACATED

 /

I. BACKGROUND

Orlando Payne (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights action

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff filed this action on January 21, 2009. (Doc. 1.)

On December 15, 2009, Defendants filed an unenumerated Rule 12(b) motion to dismiss. (Doc.

28.) On July 30, 2010, the court issued findings and recommendations, recommending that Defendants’

motion to dismiss be granted, dismissing this action in its entirety. (Doc. 40.) On August 3, 2010,

Defendants filed an ex parte request to stay the pretrial dispositive motions deadline in this action until

after the Court’s ruling on the motion to dismiss is known. (Doc. 21.)

II. MODIFICATION OF SCHEDULING ORDER

A court maymodify a scheduling order for good cause. 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 district court may modify the pretrial

1

Case 1:09-cv-00127-AWI-GSA Document 42 Filed 08/05/10 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

27

28

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

The current deadline for the filing of pretrial dispositive motions, established by the court’s

scheduling order of October 15, 2009, is August 24, 2010. (Doc. 21.) Defendants request that the

deadline be vacated until after the Court’s ruling on their motion to dismiss is known. Defendants seek

protection from the burden of preparing and filing a motion for summary judgment which will be

unnecessary if the court grants the motion to dismiss. 

The Court finds it reasonable and in the interest of judicial economy to vacate the dispositive

motions deadline in this action pending resolution of the motion to dismiss. 

III. CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing and good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Defendants’ ex parte request to vacate the dispositive motions deadline, filed August 3,

2010, is GRANTED;

2. The August 24, 2010 deadline for the parties to filed pretrial dispositive deadlines is

VACATED, pending resolution of the motion to dismiss filed by Defendants on

December 15, 2009; and

3. Following the resolution of Defendants’ motion to dismiss, the Court shall issue a new

scheduling order if needed. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: August 4, 2010 /s/ Gary S. Austin 

6i0kij UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

2

Case 1:09-cv-00127-AWI-GSA Document 42 Filed 08/05/10 Page 2 of 2