Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_08-cv-01344/USCOURTS-caed-2_08-cv-01344-15/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

 The court notes that the time for plaintiff to file an opposition has not expired. See

Local Rule 78-230 (m) (providing that in cases where one party is incarcerated and proceeding

without counsel, any opposition to another party’s motion must be filed “not more than eighteen

(18) days, plus three (3) days for mailing or electronic service, after the date of service of the

motion.”). However, as noted, infra, discovery closed on September 25, 2009, and defendants

filed their motion on September 18, 2009.

2

 Plaintiff also requested that the court send him copies of all the documents he has filed

in this action thus far. Dckt. 40-3. For the reasons explained, the court need not address this

request.

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MARK ANTHONY MORENO,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-08-1344 JAM EFB P

vs.

D. MEDINA, et al.,

ORDER AND

Defendants. AMENDED SCHEDULE

 /

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding without counsel in an action brought under 42

U.S.C. § 1983. On September 18, 2009, defendants filed a motion to modify the June 9, 2009,

scheduling order. Dckt. No. 42. Plaintiff has not filed an opposition.1

 However, he has filed a

motion for an order directing prison officials to deliver his legal materials to him.2 Dckt. No. 39. 

Defendants do not oppose that motion.

Case 2:08-cv-01344-JAM-EFB Document 43 Filed 09/22/09 Page 1 of 4
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 3

 Mr. Arthur is counsel for defendants.

2

I. Facts

After defendants filed an answer to the complaint, the court issued a scheduling order

stating that discovery could be conducted until no later than September 25, 2009, and dispositive

motions had to be filed no later than December 18, 2009. Dckt. No. 36. Accordingly, on July

29, 2009, defendants notified plaintiff that they would take his deposition on Thursday,

September 10, 2009, at California State Prison - Sacramento, where plaintiff recently had been

transferred. Def.’s Mot., Decl. of Phillip A. Arthur,3 (“Arthur Decl.”), Ex. A. They also

requested that plaintiff produce for inspection and copying a number of documents related to this

action. Id. On August 25, 2009, plaintiff filed a motion for an extension of time to produce

those materials because prison officials had confiscated them when they transferred him. Pl.’s

Mot. for Ext. of Time, Dckt. No. 40-1; 40-2. Before this court ruled on his motion, plaintiff

appeared for the deposition, but could not participate because he lacked access to his legal

materials. Arthur Decl., at ¶ 3; see Pl.’s Mot. for Ext.. Thus, defendants’ counsel has requested

that the litigation coordinators involved in the transfer return plaintiff’s legal materials by

September 23, 2009. Arthur Decl., at ¶ 5. Defendants’ counsel states that if plaintiff has his

legal materials by this date, then he can depose plaintiff by the middle of October and file a

dispsositive motion no later than January 29, 2010. See Def.’s Mot., at 4.

II. Defendants’ Request to Modify the Schedule

Defendants request that the scheduling order be modified to permit them to take

plaintiff’s deposition no later than Octobe30, 2009, and to permit the filing of dispositive

motions no later than January 29, 2010. As noted, plaintiff has not opposed this motion. The

scheduling order 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). Here,

Case 2:08-cv-01344-JAM-EFB Document 43 Filed 09/22/09 Page 2 of 4
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

3

about two months before the close of discovery, defendants notified plaintiff that they would

take his deposition nearly two weeks before the close of discovery. Plaintiff did not object to

this time-frame until he realized that he would not have the documents defendants had requested. 

Even though this situation was not the fault of defendants, they took action to ensure that

plaintiff’s legal materials would be returned to him so that he could be prepared for deposition

no later than September 23. These facts show that despite defendants’ diligence, it was

impossible for them to comply with the scheduling order. Accordingly, defendants have shown

good cause under Rule 16(b) and their motion is granted. 

Based on defendants’ representation, the court accepts September 23, 2009, as the latest

date plaintiff will receive his legal materials. Accordingly, defendants ought to be able to take

his deposition by mid-October. Thus, it is reasonable to establish October 30, 2009, as the date

for the close of discovery, and January 29, 2009, as the date by which dispositive motions must

be filed.

III. Plaintiff’s Request for the Return of his Legal Materials

Plaintiff requests an order directing prison officials to return his legal materials.

Defendants do not oppose this motion. As stated above, they will take action to ensure that

prison officials return those materials no later than September 23, 2009. Plaintiff has not

provided evidence suggesting that they will not. Therefore, plaintiff’s motion is denied without

prejudice.

Accordingly, it hereby is ORDERED that:

1. Defendants’ motion to modify the schedule is granted as follows:

a. Defendants shall complete plaintiff’s deposition no later than October 30,

2009;

b. The parties shall file dispositive motions no later than January 29, 2010; and,

c. Other than these modifications, the scheduling order remains unchanged.

////

Case 2:08-cv-01344-JAM-EFB Document 43 Filed 09/22/09 Page 3 of 4
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

4

2. Plaintiff’s motion for an order directing prison officials to return his legal materials is

denied without prejudice.

Dated: September 22, 2009.

Case 2:08-cv-01344-JAM-EFB Document 43 Filed 09/22/09 Page 4 of 4