Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_03-cv-00228/USCOURTS-caed-2_03-cv-00228-3/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ELLIOT ROLLINGS-PLEASANT,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-03-0228 MCE PAN P

vs.

DEUEL VOCATIONAL 

INSTITUTION, et al.,

Defendants, ORDER

 /

Plaintiff moves to modify the February 21, 2006, scheduling order.

A schedule may be modified only 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). Pursuant to the scheduling order discovery closes June 16, 2006. Plaintiff asserts he

cannot timely complete discovery because he is inexperienced in the law and he has limited

access to the law library. Plaintiff asserts he needs an additional 120 days beyond the date

discovery closes “to obtain the proper responses or answers to requests for admission,

interrogatories and/or the appropriate documents” so he can prepare a motion for summary

judgment or properly oppose such a motion.

/////

Case 2:03-cv-00228-MCE -EFB Document 64 Filed 05/31/06 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

Plaintiff does not explain what discovery he has conducted and does not show

what discovery he needs to do.

Plaintiff fails to demonstrate he is unable to meet the deadline despite due

diligence.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s May 12, 2006, request

for extension is denied.

DATED: May 31, 2006.

\004

\roll0228. dny modif sched

Case 2:03-cv-00228-MCE -EFB Document 64 Filed 05/31/06 Page 2 of 2