Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_22-cv-00813/USCOURTS-caed-1_22-cv-00813-6/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

IBRAHIMA WANE,

Plaintiff,

v.

KORKOR, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:22-cv-00813-JLT-BAM (PC)

ORDER GRANTING NUNC PRO TUNC

DEFENDANTS’ EX PARTE MOTION TO 

MODIFY THE SCHEDULING ORDER TO 

EXTEND THE DEADLINE TO FILE A 

MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT 

FOR FAILURE TO EXHAUST 

ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES

(ECF No. 35)

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ 

MOTION TO STAY MERITS-BASED 

DISCOVERY

(ECF No. 37)

Exhaustion Motion Deadline: January 19, 

2024

Plaintiff Ibrahima Wane (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma 

pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action proceeds on 

Plaintiff’s first amended complaint against Defendant Chen and Kokor1for failure to treat 

Plaintiff’s side effects caused by the Celexa medication, in violation of the Eighth Amendment.

Pursuant to the Court’s June 20, 2023 Discovery and Scheduling Order and October 12, 

2023 order granting the parties’ Stipulated Motion to Modify the Discovery and Scheduling 

1 Erroneously sued as “Chain” and “Korkor.”

Case 1:22-cv-00813-JLT-BAM Document 38 Filed 01/17/24 Page 1 of 4
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

Order, the deadline for filing motions for summary judgment for failure to exhaust administrative 

remedies was set for November 20, 2023. (ECF Nos. 24, 33.) 

On November 16, 2023, Defendants filed an ex parte Motion to Modify the Scheduling 

Order to extend the exhaustion-based dispositive motion deadline by sixty days, to January 19, 

2024. (ECF No. 35.) Plaintiff did not respond to the motion, and the deadline to do so has 

expired.

On January 16, 2024, prior to the Court ruling on the motion, Defendants filed a motion 

for summary judgment on the grounds that Plaintiff failed to exhaust his administrative remedies 

and Plaintiff’s claims preceding July 1, 2018 are beyond the statute of limitations without 

applicable exception. (ECF No. 36.) Defendants also filed a motion for an order staying meritsbased discovery and vacating all deadlines in the Court’s scheduling order, pending resolution of 

the motion for summary judgment. (ECF No. 37.)

Plaintiff has not yet had an opportunity to respond to the motion to stay discovery, but the 

Court finds a response unnecessary. The motion to modify the scheduling order and the motion 

to stay discovery are deemed submitted. Local Rule 230(l).

Pursuant to Rule 16(b), a scheduling order “may be modified only for good cause and 

with the judge’s consent.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4). The “good cause” standard “primarily 

considers the diligence of the party seeking the amendment.” Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, 

Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 609 (9th Cir. 1992). The court may modify the scheduling order “if it cannot 

reasonably be met despite the diligence of the party seeking the extension.” Id. If the party was 

not diligent, the inquiry should end. Id.

Defense counsel states that good cause exists to modify the scheduling order to extend the 

November 20, 2023 deadline to file a motion for summary judgment for failure to exhaust 

administrative remedies because the case was reassigned to current defense counsel on November 

14, 2023. (ECF No. 35.) Although former counsel began preparing an exhaustion-based 

summary judgment motion, current counsel needed additional time to complete her file review 

and finish preparing the motion. (Id.)

///

Case 1:22-cv-00813-JLT-BAM Document 38 Filed 01/17/24 Page 2 of 4
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

Defendants further argue that a stay of merits-based discovery is appropriate on the 

grounds that: (1) Defendants’ pending motion for summary judgment will potentially dispose of 

the entire case; (2) the parties and the Court do not require additional information to decide the 

motion; and (3) the expenditure of resources required to conduct discovery will be needless if the 

Court finds that Plaintiff’s claims are time-barred and he failed to exhaust his administrative 

remedies. (ECF No. 37.)

In light of Plaintiff’s failure to oppose the motion to extend the exhaustion-based 

summary judgment motion deadline, as well as the filing of Defendants’ exhaustion-based 

summary judgment motion on January 16, 2024, the Court finds good cause to extend the 

exhaustion-based dispositive motion deadline in this action.

In addition, having considered Defendants’ moving papers, the Court finds good cause to 

modify the Discovery and Scheduling Order to stay merits-based discovery and to vacate the 

discovery and dispositive motion deadlines. The Court finds it would be an efficient use of the 

resources of the Court and the parties to address any exhaustion or statute of limitations issues 

prior to reaching the merits of this action. The Court further notes that a stay of merits-based

discovery does not prevent the parties from conducting any further discovery needed to address 

the issues of whether Plaintiff exhausted his administrative remedies or whether any equitable 

tolling may apply to the statute of limitations, particularly in light of the pending deadline for the 

filing of Plaintiff’s opposition to the summary judgment motion. Finally, the Court finds that the 

relief granted here will not result in prejudice to Plaintiff.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED as follows:

1. Defendants’ motion to modify the discovery and scheduling order, to extend the deadline 

to file a motion for summary judgment for failure to exhaust administrative remedies, 

(ECF No. 35), is GRANTED, nunc pro tunc;

2. Motions for summary judgment for failure to exhaust administrative remedies shall be 

filed on or before January 19, 2024;

3. Plaintiff’s opposition or statement of non-opposition to Defendants’ motion for summary 

judgment for failure to exhaust administrative remedies, (ECF No. 36), remains due 

Case 1:22-cv-00813-JLT-BAM Document 38 Filed 01/17/24 Page 3 of 4
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

4

within twenty-one (21) days from the date of service of that motion;

4. Defendants’ motion to stay non-exhaustion-related discovery and vacate all current 

deadlines, (ECF No. 37), is GRANTED;

5. Merits-based discovery (not including discovery related to the issue of exhaustion or 

equitable tolling of the statute of limitations) is STAYED;

6. The discovery and dispositive motion deadlines are VACATED; and

7. As necessary and appropriate, the Court will reset the deadlines following resolution of 

the pending motion for summary judgment for failure to exhaust administrative remedies.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 16, 2024 /s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe _

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:22-cv-00813-JLT-BAM Document 38 Filed 01/17/24 Page 4 of 4