Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_24-cv-00332/USCOURTS-caed-1_24-cv-00332-5/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

TYLO JEROME FELIX, JR.,

Plaintiff,

v.

C. CAZORES, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No.: 1:24-cv-00332-JLT-SKO

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ 

SECOND MOTION TO MODIFY THE 

DISCOVERY AND SCHEDULING ORDER 

(Doc. 22)

Plaintiff Tylo Jerome Felix, Jr. is proceeding pro se in this civil rights action pursuant to 

42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action proceeds on Plaintiff’s constitutional claims against Defendants 

Cazores, Smotherman, Diaz, Velasquez, and Arreazola. 

I. BACKGROUND

The Court issued its Discovery and Scheduling Order on August 23, 2024. (Doc. 17.) The 

deadline for the filing of a motion for summary judgment based upon a failure to exhaust 

administrative remedies was set for November 23, 2024. (Id.) 

On November 14, 2024, Defendants filed a “Motion to Modify Scheduling Order to 

Extend Deadline to File Motion Challenging Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies.” (Doc. 19.) 

The Court granted the motion on November 20, 2024, extending the deadline for filing an 

exhaustion motion to December 23, 2024. (Id. at 2.) On December 9, 2024, Defendants filed a 

second motion to modify the scheduling order. (Doc. 22.) 

Case 1:24-cv-00332-JLT-SKO Document 23 Filed 12/11/24 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

II. DISCUSSION

Pursuant to Rule 16(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a scheduling order “may 

be modified only for good cause and with the judge's consent.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4). This 

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). The court may modify 

the scheduling order “if it cannot reasonably be met despite the diligence of the party seeking the 

extension.” Id. If the party was not diligent, the inquiry should end. Id.

Defendants move for a 14-day extension of the deadline for filing a motion for summary 

judgment based upon a failure to exhaust administrative remedies. (Doc. 22.) The motion is 

supported by the Declaration of Nasstaran Ruhparwar, a Deputy Attorney General at the 

California Attorney General’s Office. (Id. at 6.) The Declaration states that defense counsel 

Ruhparwar was assigned this matter on November 15, 2024, following the unexpected and 

extended medical leave of the primary attorney. (Doc. 22 at 3-4 & 6, ¶ 2.) While preparing an 

exhaustion motion that included declarations from the grievance coordinator at the Substance 

Abuse Treatment Facility and the Chief of the Office of Appeals, Counsel encountered delays 

resulting in the need for additional time to prepare the motion. (Id., ¶¶ 4, 6, 7.) The draft 

declaration was provided to the Chief of the Office of Appeals on December 4, 2024, and the 

review process generally takes three weeks. (Id., ¶¶ 4,6.). (Id., ¶ 7.) 

Defendants have established good cause for a 14-day extension of the deadline for the 

filing of a motion for summary judgment based upon a failure to exhaust administrative remedies. 

III. CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Accordingly, and for good cause shown, the Court ORDERS that:

1. Defendants’ motion to modify the scheduling order (Doc. 22) is GRANTED; and

2. The Discovery and Scheduling Order is MODIFIED to extend the deadline for filing 

a motion for summary judgment based upon a failure to exhaust administrative 

remedies from December 23, 2024, to January 6, 2025. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Case 1:24-cv-00332-JLT-SKO Document 23 Filed 12/11/24 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

Dated: December 10, 2024 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto .

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:24-cv-00332-JLT-SKO Document 23 Filed 12/11/24 Page 3 of 3