Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-00231/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-00231-10/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

LUIS V. RODRIGUEZ,

Plaintiff,

vs.

HEFFLEFINGER, et al., 

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

1:13cv00231 LJO DLB PC

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ 

MOTION TO MODIFY THE DISCOVERY 

AND SCHEDULING ORDER

(Document 52)

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

pauperis in this civil rights action. This action is proceeding on the following cognizable claims:

(1) retaliation in violation of the First Amendment against Defendants Anderson, Hefflefinger,

Badger, McAllister, Tredwell, Sheldon, Speidell, Duncan, Lovofoy and Huerta; (2) violation of 

the Eighth Amendment against Defendant Lovofoy; and (3) violation of the Eighth Amendment 

against Defendants Hefflefinger and Lovofoy based on conditions of confinement.

The Court issued a Discovery and Scheduling Order on August 18, 2015. Pursuant to the 

order, the deadline for filing motions for summary judgment based on exhaustion was November 

11, 2015. 

On November 12, 2015, Defendants Anderson, Hefflefinger, Badger, Tredwell, Sheldon, 

Speidell, Duncan, Lovofoy and Huerta filed a motion to extend the deadline to file a motion for 

Case 1:13-cv-00231-DAD-GSA Document 54 Filed 11/13/15 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

summary judgment based on exhaustion by four days.1 Defendant McAllister also joined in the 

motion.

The Court deems the matter suitable for decision without an opposition pursuant to Local 

Rule 230(l).

DISCUSSION

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, 

609 (9th Cir. 1992)). “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 the modification.” Johnson, 975 F.2d at 609. 

Defendants seek an extension of four days because of the need to request a complete set 

of documents to be attached as exhibits. Defendants state that the motion for summary judgment 

is otherwise complete, and that a four-day extension will be sufficient.

For good cause, the Court GRANTS Defendants’ motion. The deadline to file motions 

for summary judgment based on exhaustion is extended to November 16, 2015. All other dates 

in the Discovery and Scheduling Order shall remain as scheduled.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 13, 2015 /s/ Dennis L. Beck 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

 

1 November 11, 2015, was a federal and state holiday.

Case 1:13-cv-00231-DAD-GSA Document 54 Filed 11/13/15 Page 2 of 2