Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_21-cv-01109/USCOURTS-caed-1_21-cv-01109-9/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 28:1983 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

1 )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOE ALFRED TAYLOR,

Plaintiff,

v.

AYUB HAROUN, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:21-cv-01109-ADA-CDB (PC)

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ 

MOTION TO MODIFY THE 

DISCOVERY AND SCHEDULING 

ORDER

(Doc. 43)

Plaintiff Joe Alfred Taylor is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in 

this civil rights action filed under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 

I. INTRODUCTION

The Court issued its Discovery and Scheduling Order on October 10, 2023. (Doc. 40.) 

Relevant here, the deadline for filing of dispositive motions is August 19, 2024. (Id.) 

On August 9, 2024, Defendants filed a motion to modify the scheduling order to extend 

the dispositive motion deadline. (Doc. 43.) Defendants’ request is supported by the Declaration of 

Shaina Alcheck. (Id. at 5-6.) 

II. DISCUSSION

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 

Case 1:21-cv-01109-KES-CDB Document 44 Filed 08/12/24 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

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

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.

Here, Defendants’ motion indicates the parties have completed discovery. (Doc. 43 at 2.) 

Defendants seek an extension of 45 days within which to file a dispositive motion. (Id.) Defense 

counsel declares she intends to move for summary judgment on the merits based upon her case 

investigation and the discovery obtained. (Id., at ¶¶ 3-4.) She has begun compiling the relevant 

documentary evidence, preparing supporting declarations, and drafting the summary judgment 

motion. (Id., ¶ 4.) However, defense counsel attests additional time is needed to complete those 

tasks. (Id.) She further declares that additional case obligations and responsibilities, including 

several dispositive motions, continue to require defense counsel’s immediate attention. (Id.) 

Further, counsel will be out of the office and unable to work on the motion between August 11 

and 22, 2024. (Id.) Defense counsel declares the requested extension will allow her to properly 

complete the summary judgment motion, conserving the resources of the Court and the parties. 

(Id., ¶ 5.) Lastly, Counsel declares Defendants have not sought a previous extension of the 

dispositive motion deadline, nor is the instant motion made for the purpose of harassment, undue 

delay, or for any other improper reason. (Id., at ¶¶ 6-7.) 

III. CONCLUSION AND ORDER

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

1. Defendants’ motion to modify the scheduling order (Doc. 43) is GRANTED; and

2. The Discovery and Scheduling Order is MODIFIED to extend the deadline for filing 

a dispositive motion from August 19, 2024, to October 3, 2024. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 12, 2024 ___________________ _

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:21-cv-01109-KES-CDB Document 44 Filed 08/12/24 Page 2 of 2