Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_19-cv-00715/USCOURTS-caed-1_19-cv-00715-2/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

KAREEM J. HOWELL,

Plaintiff,

v.

MR. J. BURNS, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:19-cv-00715-SAB

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ 

MOTION TO MODIFY THE DISCOVERY 

AND SCHEDULING ORDER

(ECF No. 23)

Kareem J. Howell (“Plaintiff”), a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, 

filed this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On March 10, 2020, the discovery and 

scheduling order issued setting pretrial dates in this action. (ECF No. 21.) On May 27, 2020, 

Defendants filed a motion to modify the discovery and scheduling order. (ECF No. 23.)

Rule 16 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that a scheduling order may be 

modified upon a showing of good cause and with the Court’s consent. Fed R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4). 

In considering whether a party moving to modify a scheduling order has demonstrated good 

cause, the diligence of the party seeking the modification is of the utmost importance. Johnson 

v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 609 (9th Cir. 1992). The focus of the inquiry is on 

the reasons why the moving party seeks modification. Id. “[G]ood cause may be found where 

the moving party shows it assisted the court with creating a workable scheduling order, that it is 

unable to comply with the scheduling order’s deadlines due to matters not reasonably foreseeable 

Case 1:19-cv-00715-JLT-SAB Document 24 Filed 05/28/20 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

at the time the scheduling order issued, and that it was diligent in seeking a modification once it 

became apparent it could not comply with the scheduling order. Sharp v. Covenant Care LLC, 

288 F.R.D. 465, 467 (S.D. Cal. 2012). The district court has “broad discretion in supervising the

pretrial phase of litigation, and its decisions regarding the preclusive effect of a pretrial order ... 

will not be disturbed unless they evidence a clear abuse of discretion.” C.F. ex rel. Farnan v. 

Capistrano Unified Sch. Dist., 654 F.3d 975, 984 (9th Cir. 2011) (quoting Johnson, 975 F.2d at

607). 

Defendants seek modification of the deadline by which to file a motion for summary 

judgment for Plaintiff’s failure to exhaust administrative remedies. The deadline is currently set 

for June 10, 2020. Defendants request an extension of the deadline because new counsel was 

recently assigned for Defendants and counsel needs additional time to review the case file, to 

obtain and review the necessary documents, and draft the motion for summary judgment. 

Counsel also needs to obtain a declaration from the Associate Director of the California 

Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation’s Office of Inmate Appeals (“OOA”). A new 

associate director was recently appointed and the OOA has requested that three weeks be 

allowed for declarations to be reviewed and signed. 

Counsel appeared in this action on May 5, 2020 and moved to modify the scheduling 

order on May 27, 2020. Upon initial review of the file, counsel determined that a Plaintiff may 

have failed to exhaust administrative remedies for at least some of the defendants and needs to 

request additional records to file a motion for summary judgment. Since the request was filed 

shortly after counsel came onto the case and had the opportunity to review the file, the Court 

finds that Defendants have demonstrated diligence. Additionally, the appointment of the new 

associate director at the OOA, which requires additional time to obtain declarations required for 

the motion for summary judgment, is a circumstance that was not known at the time the 

scheduling order was issued. Here, Defendants have requested a three week extension of time to 

file a motion for summary judgment and no other deadlines in the scheduling order will be 

impacted. The Court finds that Defendants have shown good cause to modify the scheduling 

order. 

Case 1:19-cv-00715-JLT-SAB Document 24 Filed 05/28/20 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

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Defendants’ motion to modify the scheduling order, filed May 27, 2020, is 

GRANTED;

2. The deadline by which Defendants shall file a motion for summary judgment for 

failure to exhaust administrative remedies is July 1, 2020; and

3. All other aspects of the March 10, 2020 scheduling order remain in effect. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 28, 2020 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:19-cv-00715-JLT-SAB Document 24 Filed 05/28/20 Page 3 of 3