Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_03-cv-02562/USCOURTS-caed-2_03-cv-02562-15/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

STEVEN R. RODRIGUEZ, JR.,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-03-2562 MCE EFB P

vs.

CAL A. TERHUNE, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

Plaintiff is a prisoner, without counsel, suing for alleged civil rights violations. See 42

U.S.C. § 1983. On January 5, 2007, defendants filed a motion seeking an extension of time to

file a motion for summary judgment. On February 5, 2007, defendants filed a motion for

summary judgment. In the July 28, 2006, schedule, this court established January 5, 2007, as the

deadline for filing dispositive motions. Therefore, the court construes defendants’ request as one

to modify the schedule. 

Although the application does not address it, the request must be considered under

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 16(b), which provides that a schedule may be modified

upon a showing of good cause. Good cause exists when the moving party demonstrates he or

she cannot meet the deadline despite exercising due diligence. Johnson v. Mammoth

Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 609 (9th Cir. 1992). 

Case 2:03-cv-02562-MCE -EFB Document 91 Filed 03/08/07 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

2

Counsel asserts that he was busy working on other cases in the weeks before the motion

was to be filed in this case. While scheduling conflicts might constitute good cause, the request

here does not allege what, if anything, was done to attempt to comply with the schedule in this

case. More problematic is that the request for additional time was filed on the date that the

motion for summary judgment should have been filed. This court has no rule that automatically

suspends the time to act once a party files a request for additional time. Merely submitting a

request does not, itself, modify the due date. Therefore, by filing a request to modify the

schedule the day before a dispositive motion is due, a party effectively disobeys the scheduling

order. This order serves as an admonition that counsel must timely seek extensions or

modifications and until such time as an order is entered granting any such modification, the

parties must comply with existing schedule. See L.R. 11-110.

In the interest of managing its docket and possibly eliminating or narrowing issues for

trial, the court accepts the February 5, 2007, motion as timely. 

So ordered. 

Dated: March 8, 2007.

Case 2:03-cv-02562-MCE -EFB Document 91 Filed 03/08/07 Page 2 of 2