Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-00056/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-00056-8/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 560
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Civil Detainee - Conditions of Confinement
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

RICK HAZELTINE,

Plaintiff,

vs.

FRANCES HICKS, et al.,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 1:14-cv-00056 DAD DLB PC

ORDER DENYING REQUEST TO 

MODIFY SCHEDULING ORDER

[ECF No. 42]

Plaintiff Rick Hazeltine is a civil detainee proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this 

civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 

On August 25, 2015, the Court issued a discovery and scheduling order in this matter. 

The discovery cut-off was set for January 25, 2016, and the dispositive motion deadline was set 

for March 24, 2016. On January 20, 2016, the parties filed a stipulated request to modify the 

discovery and scheduling order in order to complete discovery. The Court granted the stipulated 

request and moved the discovery cut-off to March 24, 2016, and the dispositive motion deadline 

to May 24, 2016.

Case 1:14-cv-00056-DAD-GSA Document 44 Filed 05/11/16 Page 1 of 2
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

On March 21, 2016,1Plaintiff filed a motion requesting discovery be left open. 

Defendants did not file a response to the motion. Plaintiff alleges that a video, some pictures and 

a police report exist concerning the incident, however, he claims Defendants deny that any such 

evidence exists. Plaintiff disputes Defendants’ claim and asks that discovery be left open. 

Plaintiff offers no reason why discovery should be left open or what purpose additional time 

would serve. While he disputes Defendants’ contention, this is not cause for modification of the 

scheduling order. 

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 modify should not be granted.” Id. In this case, the Court does not find 

good cause to modify the scheduling order. 

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s request to modify the Discovery and Scheduling Order is 

DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 11, 2016 /s/ Sandra M. Snyder 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

 

1 Although filed with the Court on March 24, 2016, Plaintiff signed the proof of service on March 21, 2016.

Case 1:14-cv-00056-DAD-GSA Document 44 Filed 05/11/16 Page 2 of 2