Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-01001/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-01001-7/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

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

GERALDINE DARDEN, 

 Plaintiff,

 vs.

S. DRISCOLL, M.D., et al.,

 Defendants.

1:12-cv-01001-LJO-EPG-PC

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO 

MODIFY SCHEDULING ORDER

(ECF No. 40.)

ORDER EXTENDING DEADLINE TO FILE 

EXHAUSTION MOTIONS

New Exhaustion Motion Filing Deadline: 

 March 24, 2016

I. BACKGROUND

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 

U.S.C. ' 1983. This case now proceeds on Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint filed on

February 11, 2013, against defendant Scott Driscoll, M.D. (“Defendant”) for inadequate 

medical care in violation of the Eighth Amendment. (ECF No. 19.)

On September 24, 2015, the Court issued a Scheduling Order establishing pretrial 

deadlines for the parties, including a deadline of December 24, 2015 for filing exhaustion 

motions. (ECF No. 33.) On December 21, 2015, Defendant filed a motion to modify the 

Scheduling Order. (ECF No. 40.) On December 31, 2015, Plaintiff filed an opposition to the 

motion. (ECF No. 43.) On January 7, 2016, Defendant filed a reply. (ECF No. 44.)

Case 1:12-cv-01001-EPG Document 46 Filed 02/25/16 Page 1 of 3
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

II. MOTION TO MODIFY SCHEDULING ORDER

Modification of a scheduling order requires a showing of good cause, Fed. R. Civ. P. 

16(b), and good cause requires a showing of due diligence, Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, 

Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 609 (9th Cir. 1992). To establish good cause, the party seeking the 

modification of a scheduling order must generally show that even with the exercise of due 

diligence, they cannot meet the requirement of the order. Id. The Court may also consider the 

prejudice to the party opposing the modification. Id. If the party seeking to amend the 

scheduling order fails to show due diligence the inquiry should end and the Court should not 

grant the motion to modify. Zivkovic v. Southern California Edison, Co., 302 F.3d 1080, 1087 

(9th Cir. 2002). 

Defendant requests a sixty-day extension of the deadline for filing exhaustion motions. 

Defense counsel (“Counsel”) asserts that promptly after filing Defendant’s Answer on 

September 18, 2015, she requested a subpoena service to subpoena all of Plaintiff’s prison 

records from the Central California Women’s Facility (CCWF) where Plaintiff has been 

incarcerated since 1999. (Jaffee Decl., ECF No. 40 at 7 ¶3.) Counsel received 2152 pages of 

records on October 26, 2015, which included only medical records. (Id. ¶ at 8 ¶4.) Counsel 

asked the subpoena service to contact CCWF and make another request. (Id. ¶5.) On 

November 17, 2015, Counsel received an additional 3028 pages of records from CCWF, 

including appeals submitted by Plaintiff within the prison. (Id. ¶6.) After reviewing the 

documents, Counsel made a request for further information and discovered from a conversation 

with the Litigation Coordinator that more records of Plaintiff’s appeals existed, some of the 

records were incomplete, and Counsel would need to make another request. (Id. ¶¶7-9.) 

Counsel has requested that the subpoena service follow up again with CCWF so that Counsel 

can obtain the complete health care appeals file. (Id. ¶10.) Counsel has also made a discovery 

request to Plaintiff for records of her health care appeals, but as of December 21, 2015, had not 

received a response. (Id. ¶11.) 

In opposition, Plaintiff argues that it “would be a hardship [for her] to be subjected to 

file a reply that has previously be [sic] ruled with this same court three times prior to this 

Case 1:12-cv-01001-EPG Document 46 Filed 02/25/16 Page 2 of 3
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

action, [and it] will be a waste of time for all parties involved to dispute an issue that has 

already been decided.” (ECF No. 43.) Plaintiff asserts that CCWF improperly screened her 

appeals and made it clear that she could not use their appeal process to complain about an 

outside doctor.

The Court finds good cause to extend the deadline to file exhaustion motions. 

Defendant has provided evidence that defense counsel was diligent in attempting to obtain 

information needed to meet the Court’s December 24, 2015 deadline but was unable to file an 

exhaustion motion before the deadline expired. Plaintiff’s arguments are unpersuasive. 

Therefore, Defendant’s motion to modify the Scheduling Order shall be granted.

III. CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Defendant’s motion to modify the Court’s Scheduling Order, filed on December 

21, 2015, is GRANTED;

2. The deadline for filing exhaustion motions is extended from December 24, 2015 

to March 24, 2016; and

3. All other provisions of the Court’s September 24, 2015 Scheduling Order 

remain the same.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 24, 2016 /s/

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:12-cv-01001-EPG Document 46 Filed 02/25/16 Page 3 of 3