Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_11-cv-01025/USCOURTS-caed-1_11-cv-01025-12/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

DENELL CAVER,

Plaintiff,

v.

E. GOMEZ, et al.,

Defendants.

_____________________________________/

Case No. 1:11-cv-01025-AWI-SKO (PC)

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO MODIFY 

SCHEDULING ORDER TO EXTEND 

PRETRIAL DISPOSITIVE MOTION 

DEADLINE

(Doc. 71)

Amended Pretrial Dispositive 

Motion Deadline: 01/23/2015

Plaintiff Denell Caver, a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed this 

civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on June 20, 2011. This action is proceeding on 

Plaintiff’s second amended complaint, filed on April 10, 2012, against Defendants Gomez, Stark, 

and Garcia for acting with deliberate indifference to Plaintiff’s safety, in violation of the Eighth 

Amendment of the United States Constitution.

Pursuant to the order filed on March 24, 2014, the pretrial dispositive motion deadline was 

September 15, 2014. (Doc. 62.) On September 5, 2014, Defendants filed a timely motion to 

modify the scheduling order to extend the deadline pending resolution of Plaintiff’s motion to 

compel. (Doc. 71.) Plaintiff filed an opposition on September 15, 2014, and the motion was 

submitted upon the record without oral argument. Local Rule 230(l).

Plaintiff’s objection to the extension is noted, but an extension causes no prejudice to him 

and the pendency of the parties’ final discovery dispute provides good cause to extend the motion 

Case 1:11-cv-01025-AWI-SKO Document 75 Filed 11/20/14 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

deadline is as much as the disputed evidence may impact dispositive motions or the oppositions 

thereto. Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4); Hunt v. Cnty. of Orange, 672 F.3d 606, 616 (9th Cir. 2012).

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

order, the Court granted Plaintiff’s motion to compel and ordered Defendant Garcia to serve 

response within twenty days. Accordingly, Defendants’ motion to modify the scheduling order is 

HEREBY GRANTED, and the pretrial dispositive motion deadline is extended to January 23, 

2015.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 20, 2014 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:11-cv-01025-AWI-SKO Document 75 Filed 11/20/14 Page 2 of 2