Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_20-cv-01120/USCOURTS-caed-1_20-cv-01120-7/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

RYAN BIGOSKI ODOM,

Plaintiff,

v.

J. TAYLOR, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:20-cv-01120-KES-CDB (PC)

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ 

MOTION FOR AN EXTENSION OF TIME 

OF THE DISPOSITIVE MOTION FILING 

DEADLINE

(Doc. 40)

Plaintiff Ryan Bigoski Odom is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis

in this civil rights action. This action proceeds against Defendants Taylor, Khoo, Attinello, 

Ezenwugo, Mitchell and Singh for violations of the Eighth Amendment. 

I. INTRODUCTION

The Court issued its Discovery and Scheduling Order on September 6, 2023. (Doc. 36.) 

Relevant here, the order provided a July 15, 2024, deadline for the filing of dispositive motions. 

(Id. at 1, 3.) 

On June 27, 2024, Defendants filed an ex parte application for an extension of time to file 

dispositive motion. (Doc. 40.) 

II. DISCUSSION

Defendants seek a 45-day extension of the current dispositive motion deadline. Briefly 

stated, Defendants’ medical expert Bennett Feinberg, M.D., has been unable to complete his work 

Case 1:20-cv-01120-KES-CDB Document 41 Filed 07/01/24 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

to date and will be unable to do so before the July 15, 2024, deadline. Feinberg was retained in 

January 2024 to evaluate Plaintiff’s allegations and to prepare a declaration in support of the 

dispositive motion. The evaluation involves a review of Plaintiff’s medical records spanning a 

ten-year period and their relation to the six named defendants, as well as a review of Plaintiff’s 

deposition transcript provided to Feinberg on April 16, 2024, following Plaintiff’s March 26, 

2024, deposition. Defendants state Feinberg was unable to complete his review prior to a 

scheduled vacation in June. Defendants request additional time to file a dispositive motion to 

ensure Feinberg can complete his work upon his return from vacation. They assert the number of 

defendants, the complexity of the case, the amount of money at issue, the necessity of evaluating 

Plaintiff’s medical records and imaging files, Feinberg’s schedule, and the lack of prejudice to 

Plaintiff, establish good cause to grant the requested extension of time. 

III. CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Accordingly, and for good cause shown, Defendants’ request for a 45-day extension of the 

dispositive motion deadline (Doc. 40) is GRANTED. The dispositive motion deadline for this 

action is EXTENDED from July 15, 2024, to August 29, 2024. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 1, 2024 ___________________ _

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:20-cv-01120-KES-CDB Document 41 Filed 07/01/24 Page 2 of 2