Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_19-cv-01362/USCOURTS-caed-1_19-cv-01362-16/pdf.json

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

---

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

ROBERT HACKWORTH,

Plaintiff,

v.

E. AREVALOS, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:19-cv-01362-DAD-BAK (EPG) (PC)

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND 

DENYING IN PART DEFENDANTS’ 

MOTION TO MODIFY SCHEDULING 

ORDER

(ECF No. 74)

FOURTEEN (14) DAY DEADLINE

Plaintiff Robert Hackworth is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in 

this civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action proceeds on claims raised against 

Defendants Arevalos, Brainard, and Stohl in Plaintiff’s second amended complaint. (See ECF 

Nos. 20, 26.) On September 16, 2021, the Court entered a discovery and scheduling order 

setting the dispositive motion deadline for April 18, 2022. (ECF No. 52.) On December 16, 

2021, Defendants Brainard and Stohl filed a motion for summary judgment based on Plaintiff’s 

failure to exhaust administrative remedies prior to filing this action. (ECF No. 63.) This motion 

for summary judgment is pending before the Court. 

On April 15, 2022, Defendants filed a motion to modify the Court’s scheduling order and

vacate the April 18, 2022, dispositive motion deadline. (ECF No. 52.) Defendants request that

the Court reset the dispositive motion deadline after ruling on the pending motion for summary 

Case 1:19-cv-01362-KES-CDB Document 75 Filed 04/20/22 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

judgment filed by Defendants Brainard and Stohl. (See ECF No. 63.) Defendants argue that, if 

the motion for summary judgment is granted, two of the defendants would be dismissed from the 

case. Defendants assert that this would significantly narrow the issues to be addressed in a 

dispositive motion, thereby conserving the parties’ time and expenses. For these reasons, 

Defendants argue that good cause exists to modify the scheduling order. 

Defendants Brainard and Stohl were diligent in filing a timely exhaustion motion on 

December 16, 2021. The Court has conducted a brief review of the motion for summary 

judgment and finds, without deciding the motion, that there is a colorable basis for dismissal of 

claims against Defendants Brainard and Stohl on the basis of non-exhaustion. Addressing 

exhaustion issues prior to reaching the merits of this action will conserve the resources of the 

parties and the Court. Thus, in the interests of judicial efficiency, the Court finds that

Defendants Brainard and Stohl have demonstrated good cause to modify the scheduling order 

and vacate the dispositive motion deadline as to them. See Wilson v. Torres, No. 1:20-cv-01430-

DAD-BAM (PC), 2022 WL 319975, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 26, 2022). If necessary, the Court will 

reset the dispositive deadline as to Defendants Brainard and Stohl following the Court’s 

disposition of their exhaustion-based motion for summary judgment. 

Defendant Arevalos did not, however, seek summary judgment based on non-exhaustion. 

The case against Defendant Arevalos will proceed regardless of the outcome of the pending 

motion for summary judgment. A stay of Plaintiff’s case against Defendant Arevalos would 

prejudice Plaintiff. The pendency of the exhaustion motion filed by Defendants Brainard and 

Stohl did not impede Defendant Arevalos from filing a timely summary judgment motion on the 

merits or from seeking an extension of the dispositive motion deadline earlier. 

Given that Defendants filed this motion three days before the deadline for dispositive 

motion, Defendants should be prepared to file such a motion promptly. Nevertheless, the 

deadline as to Defendant Arevalos will be extended to fourteen days from the date of this order.

Accordingly, the Court HEREBY ORDERS that:

1. Defendants’ motion to modify the scheduling order, (ECF No. 74), is GRANTED

IN PART and DENIED in PART;

Case 1:19-cv-01362-KES-CDB Document 75 Filed 04/20/22 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

2. The motion is GRANTED as to Defendants Brainard and Stohl, and the 

dispositive motion deadline is VACATED as to these two defendants, pending 

ruling on their motion for summary judgment based on non-exhaustion; 

3. The Defendants’ request to vacate the dispositive deadline with respect to 

Defendant Arevalos is DENIED; 

4. The deadline to file a dispositive motion as to Defendant Arevalos is extended to 

14 days from the date of this order.

1

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 19, 2022 /s/

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

1 Nothing in this Order precludes Defendants from seeking summary judgment as to all defendants at this time to the 

extent that the issues are interrelated. 

Case 1:19-cv-01362-KES-CDB Document 75 Filed 04/20/22 Page 3 of 3