Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_09-cv-01252/USCOURTS-caed-1_09-cv-01252-16/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

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

Plaintiff Michael Mootry (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma 

pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action proceeds against 

Defendants Hedgpeth, Flores, Wegman, Lewis and Cabrera for violations of the Free Exercise Clause 

of the First Amendment. 

Pursuant to the May 22, 2013 Scheduling Order, the dispositive motion deadline was March 

31, 2014. (ECF No. 69.) On March 30, 2014, the Court extended the dispositive motion deadline to 

May 30, 2014. (ECF No. 83.) Subsequently, on May 14, 2014, the Court extended the dispositive 

motion deadline to September 12, 2014. (ECF No. 86.) 

On September 3, 2014, Defendants filed the instant motion to modify the discovery and 

scheduling order. Defendants seek to extend the dispositive motion an additional twenty-one days to 

October 3, 2014, in order to permit counsel time to prepare the motion for summary judgment. (ECF 

MICHAEL MOOTRY,

 Plaintiff,

v.

E. G. FLORES, et al.,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 1:09-cv-01252-LJO-BAM (PC)

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION 

TO MODIFY THE SCHEDULING ORDER

(ECF No. 94)

Deadline: October 3, 2014

Case 1:09-cv-01252-LJO-BAM Document 95 Filed 09/04/14 Page 1 of 2
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

No. 94.) The Court finds a response unnecessary and the motion is deemed submitted.1 Local Rule 

230(l). 

Pursuant to Rule 16(b), a scheduling order “may be modified only for good cause and with the 

judge’s consent.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4). The “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, Defendants explain that their previous counsel is no longer employed by the Attorney 

General’s Office and this matter was reassigned to current counsel on July 7, 2014. Due to deadlines 

in other matters, defense counsel has not had sufficient time to speak with defendants, obtain signed 

declarations, and complete a summary judgment motion. Although counsel began drafting the motion 

on August 22, 2014, additional time is necessary to complete the motion and obtain the supporting 

declarations. (ECF No. 94-2; Samson Dec. ¶¶ 2-3, 6-8.)

Good cause appearing, Defendants’ motion to modify the scheduling order is GRANTED. 

Defendants’ motion for summary judgment shall be filed on or before October 3, 2014. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 4, 2014 /s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe _

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

 

1

Plaintiff will not be prejudiced by an inability to file a response. The brief extension of time will not prejudice Plaintiff’s 

ability to oppose any motion for summary judgment. 

Case 1:09-cv-01252-LJO-BAM Document 95 Filed 09/04/14 Page 2 of 2