Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_11-cv-01186/USCOURTS-caed-1_11-cv-01186-2/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

RENE ARROYO,

Plaintiff,

v.

D. ADAMS, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:11-cv-01186 AWI DLB PC

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ 

REQUEST TO EXTEND THE DISPOSITIVE 

MOTION DEADLINE

(Document 37)

ORDER REQUIRING DEFENDANTS TO 

OPPOSE MOTIONS TO COMPEL

Plaintiff Rene Arroyo (“Plaintiff”) is a California state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil 

action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Pursuant to the September 10, 2012, Discovery and Scheduling 

Order, the dispositive motion deadline was July 22, 2013. 

On July 19, 2013, Defendants filed a motion to extend the dispositive motion deadline by 

twenty-one days.

The Court also notes that Plaintiff filed numerous motions to compel in March (ECF Nos. 30, 

32, 33, 35 and 36). Defendants did not oppose the motions.

Modification of the pretrial scheduling order requires a showing of good cause. 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 v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 607 (9th Cir. 1992)). 

“If the party seeking the modification ‘was not diligent, the inquiry should end’ and the motion to 

Case 1:11-cv-01186-AWI-DLB Document 38 Filed 07/24/13 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

modify should not be granted.” Id.

Based on Counsel’s declaration, Defendants’ motion to extend the dispositive motion 

deadline is GRANTED. Hammond Decl. ¶¶ 2-4. 

The Court will EXTEND the dispositive motion deadline to September 15, 2013. A longer 

extension is necessary to allow the Court to rule on the pending motions to compel. 

Defendants are FURTHER ORDERED to file oppositions to Plaintiff’s motions to compel 

within twenty-one days of the date of service of this order. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 22, 2013 /s/ Dennis L. Beck 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE DEAC_Si gnat ur e- END:

3b142a

Case 1:11-cv-01186-AWI-DLB Document 38 Filed 07/24/13 Page 2 of 2