Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-01948/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-01948-18/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JAMES PABLO PATTERSON,

Plaintiff,

v.

WARDEN, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:12-cv-01948-JLT (PC)

ORDER MODIFYING SCHEDULING ORDER 

EXTENDING DEADLINE FOR AMENDMENT OF 

PLEADINGS and GRANTING LEAVE FOR 

DEENDANTS TO FILE AMENDED ANSWERS 

(Docs. 76, 77)

10-Day Deadline for Defendants

Deadline to Amended Pleadings: 09/12/2015

Discovery Cut-Off Date: 11/13/2015

Dispositive Motion deadline: 12/31/2015

I. Background

Plaintiff is proceeding on the Second Amended Complaint on claims of deliberate 

indifference to Plaintiff's safety under the Eighth Amendment against Defendants Warden C. 

Lawless, Sergeant Finegan, and Correctional Officers S. Corona and R. Borbon (Docs. 21, 22). 

The current Discovery and Scheduling Order issued on January 13, 2015 and set July 12, 2015 as 

the deadline for amending pleadings; September 13, 2015 as the discovery cut-off date; and 

November 23, 2015 as the deadline for filing dispositive motions. (Doc. 60.) 

On July 6, 2015, Plaintiff filed a motion requesting to extend the date to amend pleadings 

and the discovery cut-off dates by sixty days. (Doc. 77.) While the time for Defendants to file an 

opposition has not yet lapsed, they will not be prejudiced by premature consideration of Plaintiff's 

Case 1:12-cv-01948-DAD-JLT Document 78 Filed 07/09/15 Page 1 of 5
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

motion as all extensions granted herein are extended on their behalf as well. Further, Plaintiff's 

motion for referral to the pro se settlement program, filed June 22, 2015 (Doc. 76), is also 

properly addressed in as much as Defendants must respond to advise whether they believe a 

settlement conference would be beneficial at this time. 

II. Modification of Scheduling Order

A party seeking leave of court to amend a pleading, with implications for the schedule of a 

case, must first satisfy Federal Rule of Civil Procedure116(b)'s “good cause” standard. Johnson 

v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 608–09 (9th Cir.1992). This good cause evaluation 

“is not coextensive with an inquiry into the propriety of the amendment under . . . Rule 15.” Id. at 

609. Rule 16(b)'s good cause standard is not nearly as liberal as that for Rule 15 and focuses 

primarily on the diligence of the moving party, id., and the reasons for seeking modification, C.F. 

ex rel. Farnan v. Capistrano Unified Sch. Dist., 654 F.3d 975, 984 (9th Cir.2011). 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). 

Plaintiff has exercised due diligence. Before discovery had been opened in this case, 

Plaintiff filed a motion for early discovery and to compel Defendants to respond to discovery (see 

Docs. 41, 42) Plaintiff has also requested issuance of a subpoena duces tecum (see Docs. 62, 63, 

68, 69, 70), filed a motion to compel that, subsequent to grant of Defendants' extension of time to 

oppose, was recently submitted (see Docs. 65, 67, 71, 75), has propounded requests for 

admissions upon which Defendants requested and received an extension of time to respond (see 

Docs. 72, 74), and is attempting to conduct written depositions under Rule 31 (Doc. 77, p.2). 

These efforts by Plaintiff satisfy Rule 16(b)'s good cause standard.

If good cause is found to modify a scheduling order under Rule 16, the party next must 

satisfy Rule 15(a). Cf. Johnson, 975 F.2d at 608 (citing approvingly Forstmann v. Culp, 114 

F.R.D. 83, 85 (M.D.N.C.1987) ). Rule 15(a)(2) states “[t]he court should freely give leave [to 

 

1

The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure will hereinafter be referred to as ARule *.@ Any reference to other statutory 

authorities shall so indicate.

Case 1:12-cv-01948-DAD-JLT Document 78 Filed 07/09/15 Page 2 of 5
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

amend its pleading] when justice so requires,” and the Ninth Circuit has repeatedly stressed that 

the standard for granting leave to amend is generous. U.S. v. Corinthian Colleges, 655 F.3d 984, 

995 (9th Cir. 2011); see also Eminence Capital, LLC v. Aspeon, Inc., 316 F.3d 1048, 1051; 

Owens v. Kaiser Found. Health Plan, Inc., 244 F.3d 708, 712 (9th Cir.2001)(quoting Morongo 

Band of Mission Indians v. Rose, 893 F.2d 1074, 1079 (9th Cir.1990)). “In exercising its 

discretion [regarding granting or denying leave to amend] ‘a court must be guided by the 

underlying purpose of Rule 15 -- to facilitate decision on the merits rather than on the pleadings 

or technicalities.’“ DCD Programs, Ltd. v. Leighton, 833 F.2d 183, 186 (9th Cir.1987) (quoting 

United States v. Webb, 655 F.2d 977, 979 (9th Cir.1981)). 

Five factors must be considered when assessing the propriety of leave to amend: (1) bad 

faith; (2) undue delay; (3) prejudice to the opposing party; (4) futility of amendment; and (5) 

whether prior amendment has occurred. Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182, 83 S.Ct. 227 (1962). 

"Not all of the factors merit equal weight." Eminence Capital, 316 F.3d at 1052. The 

consideration of prejudice to the opposing party carries the greatest weight. Id., citing DCD 

Programs, Ltd. v. Leighton, 833 F.2d 183, 185 (9th Cir.1987). Prejudice is the “touchstone of the 

inquiry under rule 15(a).” Id., quoting Lone Star Ladies Inv. Club v. Schlotzsky's Inc., 238 F.3d 

363, 368 (5th Cir.2001); Howey v. United States, 481 F.2d 1187, 1190 (9th Cir. 1973) (stating 

that “the crucial factor is the resulting prejudice to the opposing party”); cf. DCD Programs, 833 

F.2d at 186–87 (noting that party opposing amendment “bears the burden of showing prejudice”). 

"Absent prejudice, or a strong showing of any of the remaining Foman factors, there exists a 

presumption under Rule 15(a) in favor of granting leave to amend." Id., citing Lowrey v. Tex. A 

& M Univ. Sys., 117 F.3d 242, 245 (5th Cir.1997).

Most importantly, "[w]here . . . the court determines that refusal to allow a modification 

might result in injustice while allowance would cause no substantial injury to the opponent and no 

more than slight inconvenience to the court, a modification should ordinarily be allowed." U.S. v. 

First Nat. Bank of Circle, 652 F.2d 882, 887 (9th Cir. 1981) citing Globe Indemnity Co. v. 

Capital Ins. & Surety Co., 352 F.2d 236, 239 (9th Cir. 1965); DeMarines v. KLM Royal Dutch 

Airlines, 580 F.2d 1193, 1202 (3d Cir. 1978); Sherman v. United States, 462 F.2d 577, 579 (5th 

Case 1:12-cv-01948-DAD-JLT Document 78 Filed 07/09/15 Page 3 of 5
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

Cir. 1972). Denying the extension of time sought by Plaintiff to amend his pleading and conduct 

discovery would most certainly result in injustice, particularly in light of discovery responses 

Plaintiff received that indicate Defendant C. Lawless "is an incorrect Defendant" and that identify 

the Housing Supervisor who should properly be named as a Defendant in this action. Thus, 

Plaintiff is likely to be substantially injured and injustice is likely to result if the extensions 

Plaintiff seeks are not granted. Likewise, no trial date has been set in this action, discovery is still 

open and though this case is aging, a mere two month extension of the deadlines for amending 

pleadings, discovery, and filing of dispositive motions is inconsequential given the gravity of the 

basis for the extensions. The Court finds no basis to show that it will be inconvenienced, or that 

any party will be prejudiced by allowing the extensions Plaintiff seeks. First Nat. Bank of Circle, 

652 F.2d at 887. Finally, allowing the extensions as Plaintiff desires will "facilitate decision on 

the merits rather than on the pleadings or technicalities." DCD Programs, Ltd, 833 F.2d at 186. 

Rule 15(a)(2) is thus satisfied. An extension of the dispositive motion filing deadline from 

November 23, 2015 to December 31, 2015 is appropriate as it would be wholly impractical for 

dispositive motions to be due ten days after the discovery deadline. 

III. Order

Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

(1) Plaintiff's motion to extend dates to modify the scheduling order, filed on 

July 6, 2015 (Doc. 77), is GRANTED and the Discovery and Scheduling 

Order is MODIFIED as follows:

a. the deadline to file amended pleadings is September 12, 2015;2

b. the deadline for completion of all discovery, including filing

motions to compel is November 13, 2015;

c. the deadline for filing pre-trial dispositive motions is December 31, 

2015; 

 

2 As a reminder, this date does not allow any party to file an amended pleading without leave of 

the Court. Rather, any motion to amend the pleadings must comply with all applicable Federal 

Rules of Civil Procedure (i.e. Rule 15) and Local Rules (i.e. Local Rule 220).

Case 1:12-cv-01948-DAD-JLT Document 78 Filed 07/09/15 Page 4 of 5
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

5

(2) other than the above modification of deadlines, all requirements of the 

January 5, 2015 Discovery and Scheduling Order (Doc. 60) remain in effect; 

and

(3) within 10 days of the date of service of this order, Defendants must file a 

statement indicating whether they feel a settlement conference as requested 

by Plaintiff in his motion, filed on June 22, 2015 (Doc. 76), would be 

beneficial.3

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 9, 2015 /s/ Jennifer L. Thurston 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

 

3

This deadline does not apply to Plaintiff as his belief that a settlement conference is desirable 

and would be beneficial is inferred by his filing of the motion for referral for settlement 

conference. (See Doc. 76.)

Case 1:12-cv-01948-DAD-JLT Document 78 Filed 07/09/15 Page 5 of 5