Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_20-cv-00083/USCOURTS-caed-1_20-cv-00083-19/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

DOMINIC (AKA DIAMOND) VARGAS,

Plaintiff,

v.

CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF 

CORRECTIONS AND 

REHABILITATION, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No.: 1:20-cv-000083-JLT-CDB (PC)

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ 

MOTION TO MODIFY THE DISCOVERY 

AND SCHEDULING ORDER

(Doc. 82) 

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S 

REQUEST FOR AN EXTENSION OF TIME

AS MOOT

(Doc. 83)

Plaintiff Dominic Vargas is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights 

action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

I. INTRODUCTION

On November 15, 2024, Defendants filed a motion to modify the Discovery and 

Scheduling Order. (Doc. 82.) 

On November 21, 2024, Plaintiff filed a document titled “Motion for 90-day [extension] 

for discovery.” (Doc. 83.) On November 21, 2024, Defendants filed a statement of nonopposition to Plaintiff’s request. (Doc. 84.) 

//

//

Case 1:20-cv-00083-JLT-CDB Document 86 Filed 12/06/24 Page 1 of 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

2

II. DISCUSSION

Defendants’ Motion to Modify the Discovery and Scheduling Order (Doc. 82)

Defendants contend good cause exists to modify the Discovery and Scheduling Order 

because Plaintiff has not yet responded to their request for production of documents, and because 

Plaintiff’s deposition, presently scheduled for December 4, 2024, would be more suitably 

conducted after the phalloplasty. The phalloplasty procedure has been approved and is “pending 

completion within 12 months.” Specifically, Defendants seeks to extend the deadline for the 

completion of discovery to November 7, 2025, and the deadline for filing a dispositive motion to 

January 20, 2026. Defendants state they attempted to obtain a stipulated request to modify the 

scheduling order, however, the parties were unable to reach an agreement. Defendants’ motion is 

supported by the declarations of E. Joelson, M.D., and defense counsel Juliet Lompa. 

Plaintiff has not filed an opposition to Defendants’ motion and the Court finds one 

unnecessary.

Plaintiff’s Request for a 90-Day Extension of Time (Doc. 83)

Plaintiff requests a 90-day extension “to complete [questionnaires] and discovery phase.” 

Plaintiff states that he has encountered difficulty getting to the law library due to “prison 

conditions, holiday schedules, and ongoing medical treatment.” He states the institution was 

recently “without power and locked down due to a blown transformer,” preventing the use of his 

tablet for research and without “light to review paper documents.” Plaintiff notes that his request 

for assistance with copies of discovery requested by Defendants was denied. Plaintiff’s request is 

supported by a copy of an Inmate Request for Interview form dated October 8, 2024. 

Defendants state they do not oppose Plaintiff’s request but prefer the Court grant their 

motion to modify the scheduling order. In the event the Court were to deny their motion, 

Defendants “join in Plaintiff’s request for a 90-day extension of time to complete discovery ....” 

Analysis

Pursuant to Rule 16(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a scheduling order “may 

be modified only for good cause and with the judge's consent.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4). This 

good cause standard “primarily considers the diligence of the party seeking the amendment.” 

Case 1:20-cv-00083-JLT-CDB Document 86 Filed 12/06/24 Page 2 of 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

3

Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 609 (9th Cir. 1992). The court may modify 

the scheduling order “if it cannot reasonably be met despite the diligence of the party seeking the 

extension.” Id. If the party was not diligent, the inquiry should end. Id.

Defendants’ motion is supported by the Declaration of E. Joelson, M.D. Dr. Joelson 

declares, in relevant part, that he estimates Plaintiff’s phalloplasty surgery could be scheduled 

within 12 months “assuming there are no unanticipated institutional issues that may cause delay 

with scheduling Vargas for surgery with outside non-CDCR surgery centers.” The motion is 

further supported by the Declaration of Juliet Lompa. Ms. Lompa declares she has diligently 

investigated Plaintiff’s allegations and conducted discovery, including setting Plaintiff’s 

deposition for December 4, 2024. She believes postponing Plaintiff’s deposition until after the 

phalloplasty procedure would be more productive, allowing her to inquire about the “treatment 

course” and Plaintiff’s satisfaction with it. Further, it appears the parties are working toward a 

solution concerning the 4,000 pages of discovery materials Plaintiff indicated are responsive to 

Defendants’ request. 

Considering the parties’ requests, and the procedural posture of this action, the Court finds 

good cause to modify the scheduling order as requested by Defendants. The Court notes that by 

modifying the scheduling order, Plaintiff’s request for a 90-day extension of time becomes moot.

III. CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Accordingly, and for good cause shown, the Court ORDERS that:

1. Defendants’ motion to modify the scheduling order (Doc. 82) is GRANTED; 

2. The Discovery and Scheduling Order is MODIFIED as follows:

a. The deadline for the completion of discovery is extended from January 9, 

2025, to November 7, 2025; 

b. The deadline for the filing of dispositive motions is extended from March 30, 

2025, to January 20, 2026; and 

//

//

//

Case 1:20-cv-00083-JLT-CDB Document 86 Filed 12/06/24 Page 3 of 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

4

3. Plaintiff’s request for a 90-day extension of time (Doc. 83) is DENIED as moot in 

light foregoing modification of the scheduling order. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 6, 2024 ___________________ _

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:20-cv-00083-JLT-CDB Document 86 Filed 12/06/24 Page 4 of 4