Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_11-cv-01090/USCOURTS-caed-1_11-cv-01090-11/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

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

Plaintiff Jamisi Jermaine Calloway is appearing pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights 

action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 

Now pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion to amend the scheduling order to extend 

the date to amend the pleadings, filed October 2, 2014. Although Defendants did not file an 

opposition to Plaintiff’s request, it must be denied on the basis of lack of good cause. 

Modification of the pretrial scheduling order requires a showing of good cause. Fed. R. Civ. P. 

16(b)(4). AThe schedule 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 v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 607 (9th Cir. 1992)). AIf 

the party seeking the modification >was not diligent, the inquiry should end= and the motion to modify 

should not be granted.@ Id.

JAMISI JERMAINE CALLOWAY,

 Plaintiff,

v.

G. KELLEY, et al.,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 1:11-cv-01090-LJO-SAB (PC)

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO 

AMEND SCHEDULING ORDER

[ECF No. 68]

Case 1:11-cv-01090-LJO-SAB Document 75 Filed 11/18/14 Page 1 of 2
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

On April 15, 2014, the Court issued an amended discovery and scheduling order, which set the 

deadline to amend the pleadings as October 13, 2014. 

In the instant motion, Plaintiff fails to demonstrate good cause to justify amendment of the 

scheduling order to extend the date to amend the pleadings. The only basis provided by Plaintiff is 

that discovery may lead to Defendants not yet known to Plaintiff. Such conclusory allegations are 

insufficient, at this juncture, to warrant extension of the date to amend the pleadings. 

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s request to extend the deadline to amend the pleadings is DENIED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 17, 2014 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:11-cv-01090-LJO-SAB Document 75 Filed 11/18/14 Page 2 of 2