Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-01013/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-01013-12/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

GERALD LEE MILLER, JR.,

Plaintiff,

v.

DR. J. AKANNO, M.D.,

Defendant.

_____________________________________/

Case No. 1:12-cv-01013-LJO-SKO (PC)

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S 

MOTION FOR MODIFICATION OF

SCHEDULING ORDER TO FILE MOTION 

FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, WITH 

PREJUDICE

(Doc. 66)

I. Background

Plaintiff Gerald Lee Miller, Jr. (“Plaintiff”), a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma 

pauperis, filed this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on June 22, 2012. This action 

for damages is proceeding on Plaintiff’s second amended complaint against Defendant J. Akanno, 

M.D. (“Defendant”), for violating Plaintiff’s right to adequate medical care under the Eighth 

Amendment of the United States Constitution. The events at issue occurred at Kern Valley State 

Prison in Delano, California, and arise out of Defendant Akanno’s alleged failure to provide 

Plaintiff with appropriate treatment for his stomach problem in 2012 and 2013. 

This case is currently set for jury trial on August 25, 2015. On April 21, 2015, Defendant 

filed a motion to modify the scheduling order to allow him to file a motion for summary judgment. 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4). Plaintiff filed an opposition on May 5, 2015. Defendant did not file a 

reply, and the motion was submitted without oral argument pursuant to Local Rule 230(l).

///

Case 1:12-cv-01013-LJO-SKO Document 70 Filed 05/18/15 Page 1 of 3
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

A. Legal Standard

“A scheduling order is not a frivolous piece of paper, idly entered. . . .” Johnson v. 

Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 610 (9th Cir. 1992) (internal quotation marks and 

citation omitted). Modification of the pretrial scheduling order requires a showing of good cause, 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4), and it “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, 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 the 

modification.” 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 (quoting Johnson, 975 F.2d at 609).

B. No Good Cause for Modification

On February 10, 2014, the Court issued the discovery and first scheduling order, which, in 

relevant part, set the pretrial dispositive motion deadline for December 22, 2014. Neither party 

filed a motion, and on January 16, 2015, the Court issued the second scheduling order, which set 

this case for trial on August 25, 2015. More than three months later, Defendant filed a motion to 

modify the first scheduling order to allow him to file a motion for summary judgment.

Defendant states that he retained Dr. Bruce Barnett, M.D., to evaluate the case in 

November 2014, and he represents that Dr. Barnett’s “challenging” schedule prevented Barnett

from providing a report prior to December 22, 2014. (Doc. 66, Motion, 2:14-15.) Dr. Barnett

subsequently provided an oral report on April 20, 2015, and Plaintiff represents that he will have 

his motion for summary judgment on file within ten days of an order granting his motion to 

modify the February 10, 2014, scheduling order. 

The retention of an expert witness one month before the dispositive motion deadline and 

nine months after issuance of the first scheduling order is not due diligence. Moreover, Dr. 

Case 1:12-cv-01013-LJO-SKO Document 70 Filed 05/18/15 Page 2 of 3
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

Barnett’s busy schedule is not good cause for modification. Finally, Defendant’s motion to 

modify the scheduling order was untimely filed. 

Whatever the merits of Defendant’s motion for summary judgment might have been, the 

record is devoid of any showing of due diligence with respect to compliance with the Court’s 

scheduling orders. Defendant’s motion to modify the first scheduling order was filed in 

contravention of the order, which specifically required that modification requests be filed prior to 

the expiration of the deadline in question. Defendant not only violated that provision of the first

order but then waited more than three months after the issuance of the second scheduling order 

setting the trial date to file his motion seeking a modification. 

Given the absence of due diligence, Defendant fails to establish good cause to modify the 

scheduling order, and his motion is denied. Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4); Zivkovic, 302 F.3d at 1087;

Johnson, 975 F.2d at 607; Sequoia Prop. v. U.S., 203 F.R.D. 447, 450-51 (E.D.Cal. 2001).

III. Order

Based on the foregoing, Defendant’s motion to modify the scheduling order is HEREBY 

DENIED, with prejudice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 18, 2015 /s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:12-cv-01013-LJO-SKO Document 70 Filed 05/18/15 Page 3 of 3