Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_03-cv-06464/USCOURTS-caed-1_03-cv-06464-10/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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ABRAHAM ROMERO,

Plaintiff,

v.

H. COFFEE, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

CASE NO. 1:03-cv-06464-LJO-SMS PC

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION

FOR AN EXTENSION OF SCHEDULING

ORDER DEADLINES

(Doc. 57) 

Plaintiff Abraham Romero (“plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma

pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On March 12, 2007, plaintiff filed

a motion seeking an extension of the deadlines set forth in the scheduling order filed on August 23,

2006. (Doc. 57.) Defendants did not file a response.

Pursuant to the court’s order of August 23, 2006, the deadline for the completion of all

discovery, including filing motions to compel, was extended to January 2, 2007, the deadline for

amending the pleadings was extended to February 2, 2007, and the deadline for filing pre-trial

dispositive motions was extended to March 2, 2007. (Doc. 55.) Further, pursuant to the court’s

initial scheduling order of November 23, 2005, a request for an extension of a deadline must be filed

on or before the deadline. (Doc. 36, ¶10.) Plaintiff’s motion was not timely filed, and shall be

denied.

In addition, plaintiff’s motion was not supported by good cause. Plaintiff has had almost

fourteen months to conduct discovery, almost fifteen months to file a motion to amend, and almost

sixteen months to file a pretrial dispositive motion. A review of the record reveals that plaintiff has

Case 1:03-cv-06464-SMS Document 59 Filed 04/11/07 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

conducted some discovery and filed an unsuccessful motion to amend. (Docs. 43-46, 50, 54.)

Absent a showing of diligence in complying with deadlines, there is no good cause to support

modification of a scheduling order. Zivkovic v. Southern California Edison Co., 302 F.3d 1080,

1087-88 (9th Cir. 2002). 

Based on the foregoing, plaintiff’s motion for an extension ofthe scheduling order deadlines,

filed March 12, 2007, is HEREBY DENIED as untimely and unsupported by good cause.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 10, 2007 /s/ Sandra M. Snyder 

i0d3h8 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:03-cv-06464-SMS Document 59 Filed 04/11/07 Page 2 of 2