Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_11-cv-01088/USCOURTS-caed-1_11-cv-01088-10/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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

BERNARD MARTINEZ,

Plaintiff,

v.

L. A. DELIO, et al.,

Defendant(s).

1:11-cv-01088-LJO-MJS (PC)

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ EX

PARTE APPLICATION TO MODIFY 

SCHEDULING ORDER

(Document# 78)

DISPOSITIVE MOTIONS DUE THIRTY 

DAYS FROM RULING ON PLAINTIFF’S 

PROPOSED SECOND AMENDED 

COMPLAINT

Plaintiff is a prisoner proceeding pro se in a civil rights action pursuant to 42 

U.S.C. ' 1983. On July 2, 2015, Defendants filed a motion to modify the scheduling 

order to extend the deadline for filing dispositive motions to August 14, 2015.

Defendants present two reasons for extension.

First, Defendants suggest that the dispositive motion deadline should be 

extended because the discovery cut-off was extended to July 14, 2015, two days before 

the current dispositive motion deadline. However, the discovery cut-off was extended for 

the limited purpose of allowing Plaintiff to conduct additional discovery. (ECF No. 76.) 

Such an extension should not affect their ability to file dispositive motions by the 

deadline.

Case 1:11-cv-01088-LJO-MJS Document 79 Filed 07/17/15 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

2

Second, Defendants seek an extension on the ground that Plaintiff intends to 

amend his complaint to add claims that, according to Defendants, are not properly 

exhausted. The Court notes that Plaintiff has lodged a second amended complaint (ECF 

No. 77), but that the Court has yet to determine whether such complaint may be filed. 

The pendency of Plaintiff’s proposed second amended complaint presents good cause 

for an extension of time. 

However, the issue of whether Plaintiff’s proposed second amended complaint

may be filed likely will not be resolved prior to Defendants’ requested August 14, 2015 

deadline. The Court will not entertain a motion for summary judgment on claims that are 

not yet before the Court. Accordingly, the Court will afford the parties thirty days from the 

date of ruling on Plaintiff’s proposed second amended complaint to file dispositive 

motions. 

Based on the foregoing, Defendants’ request to modify the scheduling order is 

HEREBY GRANTED. The parties are granted thirty days from the date of ruling on 

Plaintiff’s proposed second amended complaint to file dispositive motions.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 17, 2015 /s/Michael J. Seng 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:11-cv-01088-LJO-MJS Document 79 Filed 07/17/15 Page 2 of 2