Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_11-cv-01350/USCOURTS-caed-1_11-cv-01350-10/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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JAMES EDWARD BOWELL, 

 Plaintiff,

 v.

A. DIAZ, et al., 

 Defendants.

Case No. 1:11-cv-01350-AWI-MJS (PC)

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ 

MOTION TO MODIFY SCHEDULING 

ORDER

(ECF No. 46)

AMENDED:

 

 Discovery Cutoff: 10/01/14

 Dispositive Motion Deadline: 12/13/14

Plaintiff James Edward Bowell is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma 

pauperis in this civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This matter arose 

during Plaintiff’s prior incarceration at Kern Valley State Prison (KVSP). It proceeds on a 

failure to protect claim against KVSP Defendants Diaz and Rodriguez. The deadline to 

complete discovery is August 2, 2014. The deadline to bring dispositive motions is October 

14, 2014. 

Before the Court is Defendants’ motion to extend the above deadlines on grounds 

Plaintiff is transferring to a new facility, has been separated from his legal property and is 

unavailable for a scheduled deposition. 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(b)(4) allows the Court to modify its scheduling 

order for good cause. The “good cause” standard focuses primarily on the diligence of the 

party seeking the amendment. Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 609 

Case 1:11-cv-01350-AWI-MJS Document 47 Filed 08/04/14 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

2

(9th Cir. 1992). “[C]arelessness is not compatible with a finding of diligence and offers no 

reason for a grant of relief.” Id. “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 modification.” Id.

Here, good cause exists to modify the scheduling order to extend the discovery and 

dispositive motion deadlines. Defense counsel diligently sought discovery that has been 

impeded by Plaintiff’s transfer to another prison. 

Additionally, it does not appear Plaintiff will be prejudiced by the proposed extension. 

Accordingly, for the reasons stated, it is HEREBY ORDERED that Defendants’ 

motion to modify the scheduling order is GRANTED such that the discovery cutoff date 

shall be October 1, 2014 and the dispositive motion deadline shall be December 13, 2014.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 1, 2014 /s/Michael J. Seng 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:11-cv-01350-AWI-MJS Document 47 Filed 08/04/14 Page 2 of 2