Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_09-cv-03012/USCOURTS-caed-2_09-cv-03012-19/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

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOHN EDWARD MITCHELL,

Plaintiff,

v.

J. HAVILAND, et al.,

Defendants.

No. 2:09-cv-3012 JAM KJN P

ORDER AND ORDER VACATING THE 

DISPOSITIVE MOTIONS DEADLINE

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding without counsel. This action is proceeding on 

plaintiff’s excessive force claims against defendant Rosario, and plaintiff’s retaliation claims 

against defendants Rosario, Garcia, and McGuire. Defendants seek an extension of the 

dispositive motions deadline. Plaintiff has not filed an opposition to this request.

“The district court is given broad discretion in supervising the pretrial phase of litigation.” 

Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 607 (9th Cir. 1992) (citation and internal 

quotation marks omitted). Rule 16(b) provides that “[a] schedule may be modified only for good 

cause and with the judge's consent.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4). “The schedule may be modified ‘if 

it cannot reasonably be met despite the diligence of the party seeking the extension.’” Zivkovic 

v. Southern California Edison Co., 302 F.3d 1080, 1087 (9th Cir. 2002) (quoting Johnson, 975 

F.2d at 607). 

////

Case 2:09-cv-03012-RCJ Document 111 Filed 11/14/13 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

Defendants argue that an extension is warranted because plaintiff’s request for production 

of the August 16, 2008 video was pending at the time defendants’ motion was filed, and that it is 

likely additional time would be required to address any further discovery motions filed by 

plaintiff should he be dissatisfied with defendants’ responses. In addition, due to trial dates set 

for February 2014 in other cases, defense counsel needs additional time to prepare the motion for 

summary judgment in the instant action. 

Since the filing of defendants’ request, plaintiff has filed an objection to the court’s 

October 10, 2013 order, defendants have filed a motion for protective order, and plaintiff has filed 

a motion to amend the operative complaint. While briefing is submitted on defendants’ motion 

for protective order, the briefing on plaintiff’s motion to amend is not yet completed. The rulings 

on these motions may impact the parties’ dispositive motions.

Moreover, on October 23, 2013, plaintiff submitted an ex parte notice of his willingness to 

engage in settlement negotiations. It does not appear that plaintiff served this document on 

counsel for defendants, and it is unclear whether plaintiff intended for the details of his filing to 

be made public. Thus, the undersigned will retain plaintiff’s submission until after the settlement 

conference is held. 

In light of all of the above, the January 8, 2014 dispositive motions deadline is vacated. 

The parties shall inform the court if they waive disqualification of the undersigned to serve as 

settlement judge by filing the waiver form provided by the Clerk of Court by the deadline set 

below. The court will then set this matter for settlement conference. If the parties do not file the 

waiver form by the deadline, a settlement conference will be set before a different judge. The 

parties shall complete their briefing on plaintiff’s motion to amend prior to the settlement 

conference. The dispositive motions deadline will be rescheduled, if appropriate, following the 

settlement conference. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Defendants’ motion to modify the scheduling order (ECF No. 101) is partially granted;

2. The January 8, 2014 dispositive motions deadline is vacated;

3. The Clerk of the Court is directed to send plaintiff and counsel for defendants the form 

Case 2:09-cv-03012-RCJ Document 111 Filed 11/14/13 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

“Notice of Waiver of Disqualification of Settlement Judge Pursuant to Local Rule 270(b);”

4. Within twenty-one days from the date of this order, both parties shall either file the waiver 

form provided, or notify the court of a request for another judge to serve as settlement judge; and

5. The parties shall complete their briefing on plaintiff’s motion to amend (ECF No. 109) 

prior to the settlement conference.

Dated: November 14, 2013

/mitc3012.16b2

Case 2:09-cv-03012-RCJ Document 111 Filed 11/14/13 Page 3 of 3