Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_10-cv-01746/USCOURTS-caed-1_10-cv-01746-19/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MICHAEL MCNEIL,

Plaintiff,

v.

LVN HAYES, et al.,

Defendants.

_____________________________________/

Case No. 1:10-cv-01746-AWI-SKO (PC)

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO MODIFY 

SCHEDULING ORDER AS MOOT

(Doc. 127)

I. Background

Plaintiff Michael McNeil, a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed 

this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on September 23, 2010. This action is 

proceeding on Plaintiff’s second amended complaint against Defendants Hayes, Raman, Soto, 

Byers, Doe, and Rotman for violating Plaintiff’s rights under the Eighth Amendment of the United 

States Constitution. 

On June 19, 2014, Defendant Hayes filed a motion to modify the scheduling order. Fed. R. 

Civ. P. 16(b). Plaintiff filed an opposition on July 1, 2014, and Defendant Hayes filed a reply on 

July 7, 2014.

II. Discussion

On March 27, 2014, the Court issued a fourth order directing the United States Marshal to 

initiate service of process on Defendant Hayes, and on May 30, 2014, Defendant Hayes filed a 

request for a thirty-one day extension of time to file her first response to Plaintiff’s second

Case 1:10-cv-01746-AWI-SKO Document 142 Filed 07/14/14 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

amended complaint, which was granted. On June 19, 2014, Defendant Hayes filed a motion to 

modify the scheduling order under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(b)(4), and on June 30, 

2014, Defendant Hayes filed an answer.

In the Eastern District of California, the general practice in cases such as this is to issue a

discovery and scheduling order after the defendants file an answer. (Doc. 3, 1st Info. Order, ¶8.) 

In this case, due to difficulties with service of process, Defendant Hayes did not file an answer 

until June 30, 2014, which was well beyond the dates Defendants Raman, Soto, and Byers filed 

answers and were subject to a discovery and scheduling order.

Plaintiff’s objections to any modification of the scheduling order are noted but they lack 

merit. Defendant Hayes is not similarly situated to Plaintiff and Defendants Raman, Soto, and 

Byers with respect to the first scheduling order filed on March 5, 2013, as she had not yet 

appeared in the action and was not subject to the order. Defendant Hayes is entitled to engage in 

discovery, just as Plaintiff is entitled to engage in discovery with her; and she is entitled to the 

issuance of a scheduling order now that she has appeared in the action.

1

 As such, Defendant 

Hayes’ motion to modify the scheduling order was unnecessary and a good cause analysis under 

Rule 16(b)(4) is misplaced. 

III. Order

Based on the foregoing, Defendant Hayes’ motion to modify the scheduling order, filed on

June 19, 2014, is HEREBY DENIED as moot. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 14, 2014 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

 

1 With respect to discovery, Defendant Hayes sought only a limited extension of time to depose Plaintiff. However, 

Plaintiff has a right to engage in discovery with Defendant Hayes. Therefore, the Court set the deadlines it deemed 

appropriate in a separately filed discovery and scheduling order. 

Case 1:10-cv-01746-AWI-SKO Document 142 Filed 07/14/14 Page 2 of 2