Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-01828/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-01828-25/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

REGINALD RAY YORK,

Plaintiff,

v.

G. GARCIA, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:15-cv-01828-DAD-BAM (PC)

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION 

TO MODIFY SECOND SCHEDULING 

ORDER, GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ 

MOTION TO MODIFY SECOND 

SCHEDULING ORDER, AND DENYING AS 

MOOT DEFENDANTS’ REQUEST TO 

MODIFY DEADLINE TO FILE PRETRIAL 

STATEMENT

(ECF Nos. 93, 97, 99)

AMENDED SECOND SCHEDULING 

ORDER

Telephonic Trial Confirmation Hearing: 

September 8, 2020 at 1:30 p.m. in Courtroom 5 

(DAD)

Jury Trial: November 3, 2020 at 8:30 a.m. in 

Courtroom 5 (DAD)

Plaintiff Reginald Ray York is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights action 

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action proceeds on Plaintiff’s claims against Defendant 

Garcia for excessive force and against Defendant Neighbors for failure to intervene/protect 

Plaintiff from the use of force. (ECF No. 81.)

I. Background

On September 24, 2019, Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment was denied and 

Defendant Garcia’s and Neighbors’ cross-motion for summary judgment was granted in part and 

denied in part. (ECF No. 81.) 

Case 1:15-cv-01828-KES-BAM Document 100 Filed 02/21/20 Page 1 of 6
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

On November 8, 2019, Magistrate Judge Stanley A. Boone conducted a settlement 

conference in this case at California State Prison, Corcoran. This case did not settle at that time.

On November 12, 2019, the Court issued the second scheduling order in this case, setting 

this case for a telephonic trial confirmation hearing on March 23, 2020 and for a jury trial on May 

27, 2020, and setting the deadlines for serving and filing pretrial statements, for serving and filing 

motions for the attendance of incarcerated witnesses and oppositions to such motion, for notifying 

the Court of the names and locations of any unincarcerated witnesses who refuse to testify 

voluntarily, and for submitting the money orders for witness fees for any unincarcerated 

witnesses who refuse to testify voluntarily.

On December 2, 2019, Plaintiff filed a motion for “a court order for the Defendants’ and 

prison representative to hold a settlement conference hearing with the Plaintiff to negotiate a 

settlement based upon the claims in this case and appointment of an attorney.” (ECF No. 90.) On 

December 4, 2019, the Court denied Plaintiff’s motion for a court order requiring Defendants to 

hold a settlement conference with Plaintiff, and for appointment of counsel. (ECF No. 91.)

On December 23, 2019, Plaintiff filed a “memorandum of points and authorities in 

support of the Plaintiff’s motion to modify the attendance of unincarcerated witnesses and second 

scheduling order.” (ECF No. 93.) Specifically, Plaintiff requests a 60-day extension of the 

deadlines for filing a notice of the names and locations for the attendance of unincarcerated 

witnesses who refuse to testify voluntarily, a motion for the attendance of incarcerated witnesses, 

and his pretrial statement, and a 60-day continuance of the telephonic trial confirmation hearing. 

Plaintiff asserts that he needs the additional time because his motion for reconsideration of the 

undersigned’s order denying Plaintiff’s motion for a court order to compel participation in a 

mandatory settlement conference and appointment of counsel is currently pending before the 

District Judge and he is also going through multiple surgeries for his various medical conditions. 

The Court interprets Plaintiff’s filing as a motion to modify the Court’s November 12, 2019 

second scheduling order, (ECF No. 88). 

On January 2, 2020, Plaintiff filed a “memorandum of points and authorities in support of 

Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration.” (ECF No. 94.) This motion remains pending before the 

Case 1:15-cv-01828-KES-BAM Document 100 Filed 02/21/20 Page 2 of 6
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

District Judge.

Also, on January 2, 2020, the Court ordered Defendants Garcia and Neighbors to file a 

response to Plaintiff’s motion to modify the November 12, 2019 second scheduling order on or 

before January 17, 2020. (ECF No. 95.)

On January 17, 2020, Defendants Garcia and Neighbors filed a notice of non-opposition to 

Plaintiff’s motion to modify second scheduling order. (ECF No. 96.) No reply to Plaintiff’s 

motion to modify the second scheduling order has been filed, and the time to do so has expired.

Also, on January 17, 2020, Defendants Garcia and Neighbors filed their own motion to 

modify the November 12, 2019 second scheduling order. (ECF No. 97.) In their motion, 

Defendants request that all of the upcoming pretrial deadlines and the trial date be reset because 

necessary witnesses and defense counsel are unavailable for the May 27, 2020 trial date. 

Defendants request that the Court continue the trial date to the next available date between July 

20, 2020 and October 2, 2020 or on a date after October 16, 2020. (Id.) Plaintiff did not file a 

response to Defendants’ motion to modify the second scheduling order, and the time to do so has 

expired.

On February 14, 2020, Defendants Garcia and Neighbors filed a request to modify 

deadline to file pretrial statement. (ECF No. 99.) Defendants state that the Court should grant 

their request to modify the current pretrial statement deadline because their pretrial statement is 

currently due on or before February 24, 2020. (Id.) The Court finds that a response from Plaintiff 

regarding this motion is unnecessary.

Therefore, Plaintiff’s motion to modify the second scheduling order, Defendants’ motion 

to modify the second scheduling order, and Defendants’ request to modify the current pretrial 

statement deadline are all deemed submitted for decision. Local Rule 230(l).

II. Discussion

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

only for good cause and with the judge’s consent.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4). The “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 

Case 1:15-cv-01828-KES-BAM Document 100 Filed 02/21/20 Page 3 of 6
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

4

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.

In his motion, Plaintiff argues that good cause exists to modify the second scheduling

order, extend the deadlines applicable to him for 60 days, and continue the telephonic trial 

confirmation hearing for 60 days because his motion for reconsideration of the undersigned’s 

order denying Plaintiff’s motion for a court order to compel participation in a mandatory 

settlement conference and appointment of counsel is currently pending before the District Judge 

and he is also going through multiple surgeries for his various medical conditions. (ECF No. 93.) 

In their motion, Defendants argue that good cause exists to modify the second scheduling order 

and reset all the applicable deadlines, telephonic trial confirmation hearing, and jury trial date 

because defense counsel and necessary witnesses are unavailable for the currently set trial date of 

May 27, 2020. (ECF No. 97.)

Having considered both Plaintiff’s and Defendants’ reasons, the Court finds that there is 

good cause to modify the second scheduling order, continue both the telephonic trial confirmation 

hearing and jury trial date, and reset the pretrial deadlines listed in the second scheduling order 

accordingly. Therefore, Plaintiff’s motion to modify the second scheduling order, (ECF No. 93), 

and Defendants’ motion to modify the second scheduling order, (ECF No. 97), are granted. The 

Court sets forth a new telephonic trial confirmation hearing date, jury trial date, and new dates for 

the filing of pretrial statements, the filing of motions for the attendance of incarcerated witnesses 

and oppositions thereto, and the filing of notifications and submissions related to attendance of 

unincarcerated witnesses who refuse to testify voluntarily are set forth below.

Further, since Defendants’ pretrial statement deadline is modified as set forth below, 

Defendants’ request to modify deadline to file pretrial statement is denied as moot. 

III. Order

1. Plaintiff’s motion to modify second scheduling order, (ECF No. 93), is 

GRANTED;

2. Defendants’ motion to modify second scheduling order, (ECF No. 97), is 

GRANTED;

Case 1:15-cv-01828-KES-BAM Document 100 Filed 02/21/20 Page 4 of 6
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

5

3. Defendants’ request to modify deadline to file pretrial statement, (ECF No. 99), is 

DENIED as moot;

4. The telephonic trial confirmation hearing before the United States District Judge 

Dale A. Drozd is continued to September 8, 2020, at 1:30 p.m. in Courtroom 5;1 

5. The jury trial before United States District Judge Dale A. Drozd is continued to 

November 3, 2020, at 8:30 a.m. in Courtroom 5; 

4. The deadline for Plaintiff to serve and file a pretrial statement as described in the 

Court’s November 12, 2019 second scheduling order is extended to July 8, 2020;

5. The deadline for Defendants to serve and file a pretrial statement as described in 

the Court’s November 12, 2019 second scheduling order is extended to August 7, 

2020;

6. If Plaintiff intends to call incarcerated witnesses at the time of trial, the deadline 

for Plaintiff to serve and file a motion for attendance of incarcerated witnesses as 

described in the Court’s November 12, 2019 second scheduling order is extended 

to July 8, 2020;

7. The deadline for Defendants to serve and file any opposition to Plaintiff’s motion 

for the attendance of incarcerated witnesses is extended to August 7, 2020;

8. If Plaintiff wishes to obtain the attendance of unincarcerated witnesses who refuse 

to testify voluntarily, the deadline for Plaintiff to notify the Court of their names 

and locations is extended to June 17, 2020; and the deadline for Plaintiff to submit 

the money orders, as described in subsection 4 of the Court’s November 12, 2019 

second scheduling order, to the Court is extended to August 7, 2020; and

///

///

///

 

1 Although trial dates are set in this matter, the parties are reminded that District Judge Dale A. 

Drozd is currently the sole active district judge in this Division after January 2020 and may not be 

available to conduct the pre-trial conference and trial in this action. 

Case 1:15-cv-01828-KES-BAM Document 100 Filed 02/21/20 Page 5 of 6
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

6

9. All other provisions set forth in the November 12, 2019 second scheduling order, 

(ECF No. 88), remain in full force and effect.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 20, 2020 /s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe _

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:15-cv-01828-KES-BAM Document 100 Filed 02/21/20 Page 6 of 6