Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-00750/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-00750-27/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

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

ROBERTO M. GARCIA, JR.,

 Plaintiff,

 vs.

MATTHEW M. JUAREZ, JR.,

 Defendant.

1:12-cv-00750-AWI-EPG-PC

ORDER GRANTING PARTIES’ MOTIONS 

TO MODIFY MAY 11, 2016 SCHEDULING 

ORDER

(ECF Nos. 77, 80.)

ORDER EXTENDING DATES AND 

DEADLINES AS DISCUSSED IN THIS 

ORDER

NEW DATE

Telephonic Trial Confirmation Hearing:

December 2, 2016 at 1:30 p.m.

Courtroom 2 (AWI)

Jury Trial:

January 17, 2017 at 8:30 a.m.

Courtroom 2 (AWI)

I. BACKGROUND

Roberto M. Garcia, Jr. (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding with limited purpose 

counsel1 with this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On May 8, 2012, Plaintiff 

 

1 On May 25, 2016, the Court appointed Michael G. McKneely as counsel for Plaintiff for the 

limited purpose of (1) assisting Plaintiff to bring a motion to compel responses and documents from the CDCR 

that the CDCR has claimed are privileged; and (2) assisting Plaintiff with preparing for and participating in the 

August 16, 2016 settlement conference. (ECF No. 76.)

Case 1:12-cv-00750-AWI-EPG Document 94 Filed 08/18/16 Page 1 of 5
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

filed the Complaint commencing this action. (ECF No. 1.) This case now proceeds on 

Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint, filed on June 14, 2013, against defendant Sergeant 

Matthew M. Juarez, Jr. (“Defendant”) for use of excessive force in violation of the Eighth 

Amendment.2 (ECF No. 11.)

On August 16, 2016 at 11:00 a.m., the parties participated in a Settlement Conference 

before Magistrate Judge Sheila K. Oberto. The case did not settle. 

This case is scheduled for jury trial on January 17, 2017 at 8:30 a.m. before District 

Judge Anthony W. Ishii. On May 11, 2016, the Court issued a Scheduling Order establishing 

deadlines before trial, including deadlines for the parties to file pretrial statements and for 

Plaintiff to file a motion for attendance of incarcerated witnesses. (ECF No. 71.) Pursuant to 

the Scheduling Order, Plaintiff’s pretrial statement and motion for attendance of incarcerated 

witnesses were due on June 10, 2016, and Defendant’s pretrial statement was due on July 8, 

2016. (Id.) 

On June 3, 2016, Plaintiff filed a motion for extension of time to file his pretrial 

statement and motion for attendance of incarcerated witnesses. (ECF No. 77.) On July 1, 

2016, Defendant filed an ex parte application for extension of time to file and serve his pretrial 

statement. (ECF No. 82.) On August 15, 2016, Plaintiff filed his pretrial statement and a 

motion for attendance of incarcerated witnesses. (ECF Nos. 91, 92.)

The parties’ requests for extension of deadlines are now before the Court.

II. MOTION TO MODIFY SCHEDULING ORDER

Modification of a scheduling order requires a showing of good cause, Fed. R. Civ. P. 

16(b), and good cause requires a showing of due diligence, Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, 

Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 609 (9th Cir. 1992). To establish good cause, the party seeking the 

modification of a scheduling order must generally show that even with the exercise of due 

diligence, they cannot meet the requirement of the order. Id. The Court may also consider the 

prejudice to the party opposing the modification. Id. If the party seeking to amend the 

 

2 On May 9, 2014, the Court issued an order dismissing all other claims from this action, based 

on Plaintiff’s failure to state a claim. (ECF No. 19.)

Case 1:12-cv-00750-AWI-EPG Document 94 Filed 08/18/16 Page 2 of 5
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

scheduling order fails to show due diligence the inquiry should end and the Court should not 

grant the motion to modify. Zivkovic v. Southern California Edison, Co., 302 F.3d 1080, 1087 

(9th Cir. 2002). 

Plaintiff requests an extension of the deadline to file his pretrial statement and motion 

for attendance of incarcerated witnesses because discovery is ongoing and shall not be 

completed before the pretrial statement is due. Plaintiff argues that he requires additional time 

because at the April 26, 2016 telephonic hearing, the Court granted him leave to file a motion 

to compel the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) to produce 

documents. Plaintiff also requires additional time to serve a subpoena duces tecum upon OIA 

Agent M. Dunlop compelling the production of documents. Plaintiff asserts that the report he 

seeks from Agent Dunlop is very important to his case because it contains facts, findings, and 

witness statements relevant to his claims. Plaintiff also requests additional time to contact his 

witnesses to confirm their willingness to testify.

Defendant requests an extension of the deadline to file his pretrial statement, until thirty 

days after Plaintiff’s pretrial statement is filed. Defendant argues that until he has received 

Plaintiff’s pretrial statement, he cannot comply with Local Rule 281 which requires the parties 

to try to agree upon various undisputed issues and stipulate to facts when possible when 

preparing their pretrial statements. 

Discussion

The Court finds good cause to extend the deadlines as requested by the parties. Both 

parties have shown that even with due diligence, they are unable to comply with deadlines in 

the Court’s Scheduling Order because they will not receive materials needed before the 

deadlines expire. Therefore, the Court shall grant the parties’ requests for extension of the 

deadlines.

In his pretrial statement filed on August 15, 2016, Plaintiff asserts that he has not 

received discovery responses expected from CDCR or Agent Dunlop of the Office of Internal 

Affairs. In light of the fact that discovery has not concluded, the Court shall allow Plaintiff to 

replace his pretrial statement filed on August 15, 2016 by filing an amended pretrial statement

Case 1:12-cv-00750-AWI-EPG Document 94 Filed 08/18/16 Page 3 of 5
4

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

on or before October 20, 2016, if he so wishes. The deadline for Defendant to file his pretrial 

statement shall be extended from July 8, 2016 to November 20, 2016. 

The Court also finds good cause to extend the deadlines in the Court’s Scheduling 

Order for Plaintiff to file a motion for the attendance of incarcerated witnesses at trial and 

provide witness information to the Court. Plaintiff filed a motion for the attendance of 

incarcerated witnesses on August 15, 2016. In light of the fact that Plaintiff has requested

additional time to contact his witnesses, the Court shall allow Plaintiff to replace his motion for 

attendance of incarcerated witnesses filed on August 15, 2016 by filing an amended motion for 

the attendance of incarcerated witnesses on or before October 20, 2016, if he so wishes. The 

deadline for opposition to the motion for the attendance of incarcerated witnesses, if any, shall 

be extended from July 8, 2016 to November 20, 2016. The deadline for Plaintiff to notify the 

Court of names and locations of unincarcerated witnesses who refuse to testify voluntarily shall 

be extended from June 10, 2016 to October 20, 2016. And the deadline for Plaintiff to submit 

money orders, as described on page 6 subsection 4 of the Court’s Scheduling Order, shall be

extended from July 8, 2016 to November 20, 2016. 

In addition, the Telephonic Trial Confirmation Hearing shall be continued from August 

26, 2016 at 1:30 p.m. to December 2, 2016 at 1:30 p.m. before District Judge Anthony W. 

Ishii. The scheduled trial date remains the same: January 17, 2017 at 8:30 a.m. before 

District Judge Anthony W. Ishii.

All other provisions of the Court’s May 11, 2016 Scheduling Order remain the same. 

The parties are advised to review the May 11, 2016 Scheduling Order.

III. CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The parties’ motions to extend deadlines in the Court’s May 11, 2016 

Scheduling Order, filed on June 3, 2016 and July 1, 2016, are GRANTED;

2. Plaintiff is granted leave to replace his pretrial statement filed on August 16, 

2016 by filing an amended pretrial statement on or before October 20, 2016, if 

he so wishes;

Case 1:12-cv-00750-AWI-EPG Document 94 Filed 08/18/16 Page 4 of 5
5

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. The deadline for Defendant to file and serve a pretrial statement is extended to 

November 20, 2016; 

4. In addition to electronically filing the pretrial statement, Defendant shall e-mail 

the pretrial statement to: awiorders@caed.uscourts.gov; 

5. Plaintiff is granted leave to replace his motion for attendance of incarcerated 

witnesses filed on August 15, 2016 by filing an amended motion for attendance 

of incarcerated witnesses on or before October 20, 2016, if he so wishes;

6. Defendant’s opposition to the motion for the attendance of incarcerated 

witnesses, if any, shall be filed on or before November 20, 2016;

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

refuse to testify voluntarily, Plaintiff must notify the Court of their names and 

locations on or before October 20, 2016, and must submit money orders, as 

described on page 6 subsection 4 of the Court’s May 11, 2016 Scheduling 

Order, to the Court on or before November 20, 2016;

8. The Telephonic Trial Confirmation Hearing is continued from August 26, 2016 

at 1:30 p.m. until December 2, 2016 at 1:30 p.m. before District Judge Anthony 

W. Ishii;

9. The date for Jury Trial remains the same: January 17, 2017 at 8:30 a.m. before 

District Judge Anthony W. Ishii in Courtroom 2; and

10. All other provisions of the Court’s May 11, 2016 Scheduling Order remain the 

same.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 18, 2016 /s/

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:12-cv-00750-AWI-EPG Document 94 Filed 08/18/16 Page 5 of 5