Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_10-cv-01500/USCOURTS-caed-1_10-cv-01500-20/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

BRIAN ELLIS PORTER,

Plaintiff,

v.

CHERYLEE WEGMAN, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:10-cv-01500 LJO DLB PC

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S 

MOTION TO MODIFY THE SCHEDULING 

ORDER TO ALLOW SUPPLEMENTAL 

BRIEFING IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR 

SUMMARY JUDGMENT

[ECF No. 116]

Plaintiff Brian Ellis Porter (“Plaintiff”) is a California state prisoner proceeding pro se and in 

forma pauperis in this civil action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action is proceeding on 

Plaintiff’s Third Amended Complaint on the following claims: (1) violations of the Free Exercise 

Clause of the First Amendment, the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000 

and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment against Defendants Wegman, Castro, 

and Biter; and (2) deliberate indifference to a serious medical need in violation of the Eighth 

Amendment against Defendant Grewal. 

On November 18, 2013, the Court issued a discovery and scheduling order. Pursuant to the 

order, the dispositive motion deadline was set for June 13, 2014. Requests by the parties to extend 

the deadline were granted, and the dispositive motion deadline was extended to July 28, 2014.

On July 28, 2014, Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment. On October 29, 2014, 

Plaintiff filed an opposition to the motion for summary judgment. Defendants filed a reply on 

Case 1:10-cv-01500-BAM Document 125 Filed 01/16/15 Page 1 of 3
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

November 4, 2014.

On October 15, 2014, Defendants filed a motion to modify the scheduling order to allow 

supplemental briefing in support of the motion for summary judgment. Plaintiff opposed the motion 

on December 22, 2014, and Defendants replied to Plaintiff’s opposition on December 29, 2014. The 

motion to modify the scheduling order is deemed submitted pursuant to Local Rule 230(l).

LEGAL STANDARD

The Court has broad discretion to control the course of litigation under Fed. R. Civ. P. 16. 

Hunt v. Cnty. of Orange, 672 F.3d 606, 616 (9th Cir. 2012). Modification of the pretrial scheduling 

order requires a showing of good cause. Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4). “If the party seeking the 

modification ‘was not diligent, the inquiry should end’ and the motion to modify should not be 

granted.” Zivkovic v. Southern California Edison Co., 302 F.3d 1080, 1087 (9th Cir. 2002).

Here, Defendants seek to modify the scheduling order to permit supplemental briefing in 

support of their motion for summary judgment. Defendants moved for summary judgment as to all 

of Plaintiff’s constitutional claims for monetary damages; however, Defendants did not move for 

summary judgment with respect to Plaintiff’s claim for injunctive relief under RLUIPA because 

Plaintiff was not receiving a kosher diet. Counsel for Defendants state they were made aware on or 

about October 6, 2014, that Plaintiff began receiving a kosher diet. In his opposition, Plaintiff 

concedes he began receiving a kosher diet on October 4 or 5, 2014. Defendants seek to file 

supplemental briefing limited to the argument of mootness.

Plaintiff argues that Defendants’ motion should be denied because the issue is not moot. 

Plaintiff contends that the violations he complains of are likely to be repeated. While Plaintiff’s 

argument may be entirely correct, it shows that the issue should be further briefed by the parties. 

Good cause exists to modify the scheduling order to allow supplemental briefing.

ORDER

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:

1) Defendants’ motion to modify the scheduling order to allow supplemental briefing in 

support of motion for summary judgment is GRANTED;

2) Defendants are GRANTED thirty (30) days from the date of service of this order to 

Case 1:10-cv-01500-BAM Document 125 Filed 01/16/15 Page 2 of 3
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

file supplemental briefing limited to the issue of mootness;

3) Plaintiff is GRANTED twenty-one (21) days from the date of service of Defendants’ 

supplemental briefing to file opposition to Defendants’ supplemental briefing limited to the issue of 

mootness; and

4) Defendants are GRANTED seven (7) days from the date of service of Plaintiff’s 

opposition to file a reply.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 16, 2015 /s/ Dennis L. Beck 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:10-cv-01500-BAM Document 125 Filed 01/16/15 Page 3 of 3