Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-00049/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-00049-15/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

ROBERT DEWAYNE BOSLEY, JR., 

 Plaintiff,

v.

M. VELASCO, et al., 

 Defendants.

Case No. 1:14-cv-00049-MJS (PC)

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S 

MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO 

FILE PRETRIAL STATEMENT

(ECF No. 77)

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

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The action proceeds on Plaintiff’s Second Amended 

Complaint charging Defendant Velasco with excessive force in violation of the 

Fourteenth Amendment. This matter is set for a trial on January 18, 2017, and a 

telephonic trial confirmation hearing is set for November 17, 2016. 

Pursuant to the Second Scheduling Order (ECF No. 75), Plaintiff’s Pretrial 

Statement was due on or before October 14, 2016.1 Plaintiff has now moved for an 

unspecified extension of time to file his pretrial statement on the ground that he has 

been housed at a maximum security prison that is currently on lockdown. (ECF No. 77.) 

 

1

Defendant filed a timely pretrial statement November 4, 2016. (ECF No. 84.)

Case 1:14-cv-00049-MJS Document 89 Filed 11/08/16 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

2

Confusingly, Plaintiff claims that he has been housed at this facility “since October 24, 

2016” and that he is awaiting a transfer to another institution, but he also claims that he 

is scheduled for “release 10-24-16.” On the same date that Plaintiff filed this motion, he 

also filed a 25-page motion for appointment of counsel with attached exhibits, which 

was denied (see ECF Nos. 78, 81), and a 3-page motion for the attendance of 

witnesses, which will be addressed in a separate order (ECF No. 79). 

Modification of a scheduling order requires a showing of good cause, Fed. R. 

Civ. P. 16(b), and good cause requires a showing of due diligence, Johnson v. 

Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 609 (9th Cir. 1992). To establish good 

cause, the party seeking the modification of a scheduling order must generally show 

that even with the exercise of due diligence, they cannot meet the requirement of the 

order. Id. The court may also consider the prejudice to the party opposing the 

modification. Id. If the party seeking to amend the scheduling order fails to show due 

diligence the inquiry should end and the court should not grant the motion to modify. 

Zivkovic v. Southern California Edison, Co., 302 F.3d 1080, 1087 (9th Cir. 2002).

The Court is not convinced that Plaintiff has shown good cause for a modification 

of the Second Scheduling Order. The filing of his motion to appoint counsel and motion 

for the attendance of witnesses indicates Plaintiff is able to seek relief in this Court and 

to respond to court orders, notwithstanding the lockdown. Nonetheless, in an 

abundance of caution, Plaintiff’s will be granted a short extension of time to file his 

pretrial statement. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion for extension of 

time (ECF No. 77) is GRANTED. Plaintiff shall file his pretrial statement on or before 

November 16, 2016. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 7, 2016 /s/Michael J. Seng 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:14-cv-00049-MJS Document 89 Filed 11/08/16 Page 2 of 2