Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_20-cv-00813/USCOURTS-caed-1_20-cv-00813-12/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

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

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MICHELLE-LAEL B. NORSWORTHY,

Plaintiff,

v.

JANEL ESPINOZA, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:20-cv-00813-KES-HBK (PC)

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO AMEND 

CASE MANAGEMENT SCHEDULING 

ORDER TO LIMITED EXTENT

(Doc. No. 121)

Pending before the Court is Defendants’ Motion to Amend the Case Management 

Scheduling Order to Vacate the Trial Date and All Related Deadlines filed on December 12, 

2024. (Doc. No. 121, “Motion”). Defendants move to vacate the trial date and all related 

deadlines pending the district court’s ruling on the pending motions for summary judgment. (Id.). 

Plaintiff filed an Opposition to the Motion on December 17, 2024, pointing to the age of the case 

and Plaintiff’s financial need to obtain medical care. (Doc. No. 122, “Opposition’). In the

alternative, Plaintiff requests the Court to continue the pretrial and trial dates to a date certain 

should the current motions not be able to be decided before the current dates. (Id.). Defendants 

filed a Reply on December 18, 2024, pointing to Plaintiff’s previous stipulations to modify the 

Case Management Scheduling Order and denying that the case has been delayed. (Doc. No. 123, 

“Reply”). Defendants further note the resolution of the motions will be further delayed by the 

Case 1:20-cv-00813-KES-HBK Document 124 Filed 12/27/24 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

fourteen-day objection period after the issuance of a findings and recommendation on the pending 

motions and a ruling by the district court could result in trial being unnecessary. (Id.). 

The parties respectively filed motions for summary judgement on August 30, 2024. (Doc. 

Nos. 108, 110). The December 16, 2024 hearing date on the respective motions was vacated by 

the district court and the motions were referred to the undersigned for preparation of findings and 

recommendations. (Doc. No. 112). Oppositions to the motions were filed on September 27, 2024 

(Doc. Nos. 113, 114), and replies were filed on October 14, 2024. (Doc. Nos. 117, 118). The

pretrial conference and trial for this case are currently scheduled for February 10, 2025 and April 

15, 2024. (Doc. No. 105). Although this Court attempts to resolve all motions as expeditiously 

as possible, the Court will not be able to render a final ruling on the pending motions prior to the 

current pretrial conference date. For good cause shown, the Court will grant the Motion to the 

extent the Court will continue the pretrial and trial dates by ninety (90) days. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 

16(b)(4). 

Accordingly, it is ORDERED:

1. Defendants’ Motion (Doc. No. 121) is GRANTED to the extent set forth herein.

2. The Pretrial Conference currently scheduled for Monday, February 10, 2025 at 1:30 

P.M. is CONTINUED to Monday, May 12, 2025 at 1:30 P.M.

3. The Trial currently scheduled for Tuesday April 15, 2025 at 8:30 A.M. is 

CONTINUED to July 15, 2025 at 8:30 A.M.

Dated: December 27, 2024 

HELENA M. BARCH-KUCHTA

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:20-cv-00813-KES-HBK Document 124 Filed 12/27/24 Page 2 of 2