Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00512/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00512-28/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

I. Introduction

Plaintiff Will Moses Palmer, III (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding se and in forma 

pauperis in this civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff initiated this action on 

April 28, 2006. (ECF No. 1.) This action now proceeds on Plaintiff’s second amended complaint 

against Defendants Jordnt and Bardonnex for retaliation and denial of access to the courts. (ECF Nos. 

111, 112, 122.) 

Currently pending before the Court is Defendants’ motion to modify the discovery and 

scheduling order, which was filed on August 14, 2013. Plaintiff did not file any opposition or other 

response. The motion is deemed submitted. Local Rule 230(l).

II. Discussion

Defendants Jordnt and Bardonnex, proceeding through counsel from the Office of the Attorney 

General, answered the first amended complaint on December 22, 2011. (ECF No. 80.) Thereafter, the 

WILL MOSES PALMER, III,

 Plaintiff,

v.

JORDNT, et al.,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 1:06-cv-00512-LJO-BAM PC

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION 

TO MODIFY DISCOVERY AND SCHEDULING 

ORDER

(ECF No. 123)

Case 1:06-cv-00512-LJO-BAM Document 124 Filed 09/13/13 Page 1 of 3
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

Court issued a Discovery and Scheduling Order, which set the deadline for completion of discovery as 

August 27, 2012, and the dispositive motion deadline as November 5, 2012. (ECF No. 81.) 

Subsequently, Plaintiff sought leave to file a second amended complaint, which the Court 

granted on June 8, 2012. Following screening, on January 7, 2013, the Court directed the United 

States Marshal to serve the second amended complaint on Defendant Lopez. (ECF No. 118.) On May 

16, 2013, the United States Marshal returned the summons unexecuted as to Defendant Lopez. (ECF 

No. 119.) Accordingly, on May 20, 2013, the Court issued an order for Plaintiff to show cause why 

Defendant Lopez should not be dismissed from this action for failure to provide sufficient information 

to effectuate service. (ECF No. 120.) Plaintiff did not respond to the order to show cause. The 

undersigned issued findings and recommendations regarding dismissal of Defendant Lopez on July 5, 

2013. (ECF No. 121.) Plaintiff did not file any objections to the findings and recommendations. 

Thereafter, on August 12, 2013, the Court adopted the findings and recommendations and dismissed 

Defendant Lopez from this action. (ECF No. 122.) Two days later, on August 14, 2013, Defendants 

Jordnt and Bardonnex filed the instant motion requesting modification of the Discovery and 

Scheduling Order to permit them to depose Plaintiff and to file their anticipated motion for summary 

judgment. (ECF No. 123.) 

In seeking the requested modification, counsel for Defendants Jordnt and Bardonnex explains 

that when the Court ordered that the second amended complaint be served on Defendant Lopez, it was 

anticipated that all three of the defendants would be represented by the Office of the Attorney General. 

Counsel believed that judicial economy and efficiency would be promoted by conducting a single 

deposition of Plaintiff and filing a single motion for summary judgment that could resolve some or all 

of the issues in this case. (ECF No. 123-1, Declaration of Ellen Y. Hung (“Hung Dec.”) ¶¶ 4.) 

However, service was never effectuated on Defendant Lopez, and the Court dismissed Defendant 

Lopez from this action on August 12, 2013. Defendants Jordnt and Bardonnex now request that they 

be permitted to complete Plaintiff’s deposition within thirty days after resolution of this motion and to 

file a summary judgment motion within sixty days after resolution of this motion. 

///

///

Case 1:06-cv-00512-LJO-BAM Document 124 Filed 09/13/13 Page 2 of 3
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

A. Legal Standard

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 district court may modify the scheduling 

order “if it cannot reasonably be met despite the diligence of the party seeking the extension.” Id.

B. Analysis

Based on Defendants’ explanation for delaying their deposition of Plaintiff and motion for 

summary judgment until service of Defendant Lopez, the Court finds good cause to modify the 

scheduling order in this matter. Defendants could not control the length of time for attempted service 

of Defendant Lopez and there is no indication that Defendants were not diligent in meeting all other 

discovery and scheduling order deadlines. Further, Plaintiff has not objected to the requested 

extension. 

III. Conclusion and Order

For good cause appearing, Defendants’ motion to modify the discovery and scheduling order is 

GRANTED. Defendants may depose Plaintiff within thirty (30) days after service of this order, and 

shall file and serve their motion for summary judgment within sixty (60) days after service of this 

order. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 13, 2013 /s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe _

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:06-cv-00512-LJO-BAM Document 124 Filed 09/13/13 Page 3 of 3