Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-01022/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-01022-24/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

TROAS V. BARNETT,

Plaintiff,

v.

DAVID NORMAN, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

CASE NO. 1:05-cv-01022-GBC (PC)

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR

EXTENSION OF DISCOVERY

(Doc. 83)

Plaintiff Troas V. Barnett (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma

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

commencing this action on August 9, 2005. (Doc. 1). On July 20, 2010, the Court issued a

Discovery/Scheduling Order establishing a deadline of March 20, 2011 for completion of discovery,

including motions to compel, and a deadline of May 31, 2011 for filing pretrial dispositive motions. 

(Docs. 59, 77). On November 22, 2010, Plaintiff filed a motion to extend the discovery deadline. 

(Doc. 83). On December 2, 2010, Defendants filed an opposition. (Doc. 86). On December 16,

2010, Plaintiff filed a reply. (Doc. 91).

A scheduling order controls the subsequent course of an action unless it is modified by the

court. Fed.R.Civ.P. 16(e); Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 608 (9th Cir.

1992). A scheduling order cannot be modified “except upon a showing of good cause.” 

Fed.R.Civ.P. 16(b); Zivkovic v. Southern California Edison Co., 302 F.3d 1080, 1087 (9th Cir.

2002). Rule 16(b)’s good cause standard primarily considers the diligence of the party seeking the

amendment, and the court may modify the scheduling order if it cannot reasonably be met despite

1

Case 1:05-cv-01022-BAM Document 109 Filed 06/27/11 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

the diligence of the party seeking the extension. Johnson, 975 F.2d at 609 (citing Fed.R.Civ.P. 16

advisory committee’s notes). A party demonstrates good cause for the modification of a scheduling

order by showing that, even with the exercise of due diligence, he or she was unable to meet the

timetable set forth in the order. Zivkovic, 302 F.3d at 1087; Johnson, 975 F.2d at 609. “If the party

seeking the modification ‘was not diligent, the inquiry should end' and the motion to modify should

not be granted.” Zivkovic, 302 F.3d at 1087; see also Johnson, 975 F.2d at 609 (“Although the

existence or degree of prejudice to the party opposing the modification might supply additional

reasons to deny a motion, the focus of the inquiry is upon the moving party's reasons for seeking

modification”). “[C]arelessness is not compatible with a finding of diligence and offers no reason

for a grant of relief.” Johnson, 975 F.2d at 609. 

Plaintiff argues that the extension is necessary because he did not receive an answer to his

complaint from Defendant Gamboa until October 19, 2010. (Doc. 83). However, much of

Plaintiff’s discovery would entail records that could be asked from any of the Defendants and if

Plaintiff exercises diligence, four months is sufficient to obtain discovery such as interrogatories

from Defendant Gamboa. Moreover, as Plaintiff has filed a morion to set pretrial and has already

filed his pretrial statement, it appears that his request for an extension of time to conduct further

discovery is moot. (Docs. 98, 99, 100). The Court is cognizant, however, of recent discovery orders

and if Plaintiff is able demonstrate that he is able to make a showing as instructed in the Court’s

order on June 24, 2011, regarding written depositions of prisoners (Doc. 107) or follow the

directions in the Court’s order on June 24, 2011, regarding seeking discovery of personnel records

(Doc. 105), Plaintiff has fifteen (15) days from the date of this orderto inform the Court of Plaintiff’s

desire to continue discovery regarding the issues raised in those two orders and request an extension

of the discovery deadline. Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff’s motion to extend discovery is

HEREBY DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: June 27, 2011 

0jh02o UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

2

Case 1:05-cv-01022-BAM Document 109 Filed 06/27/11 Page 2 of 2