Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-00446/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-00446-17/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal

---

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

ELTON W. ERVIN,

Plaintiff,

v.

MERCED POLICE DEPARTMENT, et 

al.,

Defendants.

1:13-cv-00446 GSA

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S 

MOTION TO FILE AN UNTIMELY 

MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

(Doc. 89)

On June 29, 2015, Plaintiff filed a Motion to File an Untimely Motion for Summary

Judgment. (Doc. 89). The Court construes this request as a Motion to Amend the Scheduling 

Order. Upon a review of the motion, Plaintiff’s request is DENIED.

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16 provides that the deadlines established in a scheduling 

order may “be modified only for good cause.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4). The good cause 

“standard primarily considers the diligence of the party seeking the amendment.” Johnson v. 

Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 609 (9th Cir. 1992). It is only satisfied when a 

Case 1:13-cv-00446-EPG Document 115 Filed 10/06/15 Page 1 of 3
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

deadline “cannot reasonably be met despite the diligence of the party seeking the extension.” Id. 

“[C]arelessness is not compatible with a finding of diligence and offers no reason for a grant of 

relief.” Id. 

Here, Plaintiff has not demonstrated good cause to seek an amendment to the Scheduling 

Order. His motion is based on the premise that he has limited time to complete legal research, he 

was unable to complete discovery because he is waiting for a protective order from Defendants, 

and he was waiting for an order from the Court to extend his discovery deadline. (Doc. 89, pgs. 

1-2). The Court finds the Plaintiff’s arguments unpersuasive. 

The filing of dispositive motions was due on April 17, 2015. (Doc. 51, pg. 2). Defendants 

timely filed their Motion for Summary Judgment. (Doc. 65). Plaintiff filed a Motion to Extend 

time to file an Opposition to the Motion for Summary Judgment and the Court granted that 

request. (Docs. 73, 77, and 79). Plaintiff subsequently filed his opposition to the Defendant’s 

Motion for Summary Judgment on June 3, 2015. (Docs. 82-83). At no time in this process did 

Plaintiff file a timely motion to extend the dispositive motion filing deadline on his own behalf. 

His arguments that he was waiting for Defendants to provide him with discovery is unavailing 

since the lack of the discovery did not prevent Plaintiff from filing a timely extension request. 

His assertions that he was waiting for rulings on his discovery motions also lacks merit as his 

pending motions would not act as a stay of the proceedings, and his discovery motion was denied 

by the Court. (Docs. 60 & 76).

Plaintiff has repeatedly missed deadlines which the Court has excused on many occasions. 

(Docs. 16, 34, 38, 39, 42, 51). However, in this case, Plaintiff has not established good cause for 

the extension request, and permitting the filing of a Motion for Summary Judgment at this late 

juncture would be very prejudicial to Defendants. The Court has also ruled on Defendants’ 

Motion for Summary Judgment concurrently with this motion, and has determined that there are 

Case 1:13-cv-00446-EPG Document 115 Filed 10/06/15 Page 2 of 3
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

3

disputed issues of material facts in this case that must be determined by a jury. Accordingly, 

Plaintiff’s Motion to File an Untimely Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 89) is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 5, 2015 /s/ Gary S. Austin 

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:13-cv-00446-EPG Document 115 Filed 10/06/15 Page 3 of 3