Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-01963/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-01963-3/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

MARK A. JONES,

Plaintiff,

vs.

S. NIEHUS, et al., 

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

1:12cv01963 LJO DLB PC

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ 

MOTION TO MODIFY THE DISCOVERY 

AND SCHEDULING ORDER

(Document 34)_

Plaintiff Mark A. Jones (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma 

pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1983. The action is proceeding on 

Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint for First Amendment retaliation against Defendants S. 

Niehus, A. Maxfield and K. Matta.

Pursuant to the February 2, 2015, Discovery and Scheduling Order, the dispositive 

motion deadline is August 31, 2015.

Defendants Matta and Niehus filed a motion for summary judgment based on exhaustion 

on June 4, 2015. The motion is pending.

On August 26, 2015, Defendants filed a motion to extend the August 31, 2015, 

dispositive motion deadline. The Court deems the matter suitable for decision without an 

opposition. Local Rule 230(l).

Case 1:12-cv-01963-LJO-DLB Document 35 Filed 09/01/15 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

DISCUSSION

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

Civ. P. 16(b)(4). “The 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)). “If the party seeking the modification ‘was not diligent, the inquiry should 

end’ and the motion to modify should not be granted.” Id.

Here, Defendants request an extension of the August 31, 2015, dispositive motion 

deadline because of the pending motion for summary judgment. If the motion is granted, it will 

dispose of Plaintiff’s claims against two of the three Defendants. 

Good cause appearing, Defendants’ motion is GRANTED. The Court extends the 

dispositive motion deadline to February 27, 2016.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 1, 2015 /s/ Dennis L. Beck 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:12-cv-01963-LJO-DLB Document 35 Filed 09/01/15 Page 2 of 2