Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-01996/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-01996-9/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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MELVIN MUNIR,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-05-1996 MCE EFB P

vs.

THOMAS, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

Plaintiff is a prisoner without counsel seeking relief for alleged civil rights violations. 

See 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On March 13, 2007, plaintiff filed a motion to extend the time for

discovery. The time for discovery is governed by the November 15, 2006, discovery and

scheduling order, and previously closed on February 23, 2007. Accordingly, the court treats the

motion as one to modify the scheduling order.

A schedule may be modified upon a showing of good cause. Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b). Good

cause exists when the moving party demonstrates he cannot meet the deadline despite exercising

due diligence. Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 609 (9th Cir. 1992). 

Pursuant to the November 15, 2006, discovery and scheduling order, discovery closed February

23, 2007. In the March 13, 2007, motion, petitioner seeks an additional 60 days to conduct

discovery. He asserts that he is blind and that the prisoner assisting him had possession of

Case 2:05-cv-01996-MCE-EFB Document 37 Filed 05/01/07 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

plaintiff’s legal materials but those papers were confiscated when that prisoner was placed into

administrative segregation. He also asserts that just days before filing this motion he was

informed by a third prisoner that discovery is “essential” and that discovery was to close “within

days.”

While these facts, if established, would constitute good cause, plaintiff has not submitted

evidence to establish them. In support of his assertion that he is blind, he submits a document

dated December 6, 2006 purporting to document his disability. While the document shows that

he wears a special vest and is restricted to a lower bunk, it does not specify his disability. 

Furthermore, plaintiff does not state when the prisoner assisting him was placed into

administrative segregation or whether plaintiff made any attempt to obtain his legal materials. 

Plaintiff fails to demonstrate that he was unable to meet the deadline despite due

diligence.

Plaintiff’s March 13, 2007, request is therefore denied.

So ordered. 

Dated: May 1, 2007.

Case 2:05-cv-01996-MCE-EFB Document 37 Filed 05/01/07 Page 2 of 2