Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-00540/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-00540-12/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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JAMES H. FISHER,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-05-0540 MCE EFB P

vs.

N. DIZON, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

Plaintiff is a prisoner without counsel seeking relief for alleged civil rights violations. 

See 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On December 22, 2006, and on January 25, 2007, defendants filed

motions for extensions of time to file a dispositive motion. The time for filing such a motion

was set in a pretrial scheduling order issued pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 16. On February 2, 2007,

defendants filed a motion for summary judgment. The court construes the December and

January motions as seeking to modify the July 28, 2006, scheduling order. See Fed. R. Civ. P.

16. Pursuant to the scheduling order, the parties had until December 29, 2006, to file dispositive

motions. Plaintiff had until March 30, 2007, to file a pretrial statement and defendants had until

April 13, 2007, to file a pretrial statement. Pretrial conference is set for April 20, 2007, and trial

is set for July 11, 2007. 

////

Case 2:05-cv-00540-MCE -EFB Document 55 Filed 05/01/07 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

2

A schedule may be modified upon a showing of good cause. Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b). Good

cause exists when the moving party demonstrates he cannot meet the deadline despite exercising 

due diligence. Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 609 (9th Cir. 1992). In the 

December motion, counsel for defendants asserted that she could not timely file a dispositive

motion because of her heavy caseload and because the holidays made it impossible to contact

many of the defendants who would submit declarations in support of the motion. In the January

motion, counsel asserted that she required additional time because of her large and active

caseload. In the interest of managing its docket and possibly eliminating or narrowing issues for

trial, the court accepts defendants’ February 2, 2007, motion as timely.

The dispositive motion will require that other dates set in the scheduling order be altered

as well. Plaintiff has not opposed defendants’ motion. The time for pretrial statements has

passed and the court cannot resolve defendants’ motion before the time for pretrial conference. 

Thus, the parties could not and cannot comply with these dates even with the exercise of

diligence. 

Accordingly, the court vacates the dates for the filing of pretrial statements, the pretrial

conference and trial. Plaintiff has 30 days from the date of this order to file an opposition to

defendants’ motion for summary judgment. 

So ordered. 

Dated: May 1, 2007.

Case 2:05-cv-00540-MCE -EFB Document 55 Filed 05/01/07 Page 2 of 2