Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-01150/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-01150-4/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

DANIEL ROWE, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

vs. )

)

M. CASTRO, et al., )

)

)

Defendants. )

____________________________________)

1:07-cv-01150-GSA-PC 

 

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO

MODIFY SCHEDULING ORDER

(Doc. 35.)

New Dispositive Motions Deadline - 08-22-2010

Daniel Rowe ("Plaintiff") is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with this

civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff filed this action on August 8, 2007. (Doc. 1.) 

The case now proceeds on Plaintiff's amended complaint filed on May 22, 2008, against defendants M.

Castro and K. Frescura ("Defendants") for First Amendment Retaliation. (Doc. 10.)

On June 15, 2010, Defendants filed a motion to modify the court's scheduling order. (Doc. 35.)

A court may modify 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, 975 F.2d at

609. To establish good cause, the party seeking the modification of a scheduling order must generally

show that even with the exercise of due diligence, they cannot meet the requirement of the order. Id.

Defendants seek a sixty-dayextension of the dispositive motions deadline which was established

by the court's scheduling order of June 2, 2009 and subsequently extended by the court's order of

February 18, 2010. (Docs. 21, 30.) The current deadline is June 21, 2010. Defendants request an

Case 1:07-cv-01150-GSA Document 36 Filed 06/17/10 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

extension because the case was recently referred to new counsel and more time is needed for the new

attorney to familiarize herself with the case and file a motion for summary judgment. The new attorney

is also preparing for a trial in another case scheduled to begin on June 28, 2010 and preparing and

defending five client depositions in yet another case. She has filed a declaration in which she describes

her workload and indicates that she cannot meet the current deadline.

The court finds that good cause has been presented by Defendants to modify the scheduling

order. Therefore, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Defendants' motion to modify the court's scheduling order is GRANTED; and

2. The deadline for all parties to this action to file pretrial dispositive motions is extended

to August 22, 2010.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: June 16, 2010 /s/ Gary S. Austin 

6i0kij UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:07-cv-01150-GSA Document 36 Filed 06/17/10 Page 2 of 2