Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-02109/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-02109-4/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

LIZBETH COLON,

Plaintiff,

vs.

ARAIN, et al.,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

1:13cv02109 DLB PC

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S EX 

PARTE APPLICATION TO MODIFY 

DISCOVERY AND SCHEDULING ORDER

(Document 39)

Plaintiff Lizbeth Colon (“Plaintiff”) is a former state prisoner proceeding pro se and in 

forma pauperis in this civil rights action. This action is proceeding on Plaintiff’s First Amended 

Complaint for violation of the Eighth Amendment against Defendants Jones and Arain1. 

The Court issued a Discovery and Scheduling Order on March 30, 2015, and the action is 

currently in discovery. The discovery cut-off is August 27, 2015, and the dispositive motion 

deadline is October 26, 2015. 

Defendant Arain’s July 17, 2015, motion to compel is pending. Plaintiff did not file an 

opposition to the motion.

 

1 Defendants are represented by separate counsel.

Case 1:13-cv-02109-DLB Document 41 Filed 09/01/15 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

On August 25, 2015, the Court issued an order to show cause to Plaintiff why this action 

should not be dismissed for Plaintiff’s failure to participate in discovery and/or failure to 

prosecute this action. The time for filing a response has not yet passed.

Also on August 25, 2015, Defendant Jones filed an ex parte motion to extend the 

discovery deadline and dispositive motion cut-off dates. The Court deems the matter suitable for 

decision without an opposition.

Modification of the pretrial scheduling order requires a showing of good cause. Fed. R. 

Civ. P. 16(b)(4). “The schedule may be modified ‘if it cannot reasonably be met despite the 

diligence of the party seeking the extension.’” Zivkovic v. Southern California Edison Co., 302 

F.3d 1080, 1087 (9th Cir. 2002) (quoting Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 

609 (9th Cir. 1992)). “Although the existence or degree of prejudice to the party opposing the 

modification might supply additional reasons to deny a motion, the focus of the inquiry is upon 

the moving party’s reasons for seeking the modification.” Johnson, 975 F.2d at 609. “If the 

party seeking the modification ‘was not diligent, the inquiry should end’ and the motion to 

modify should not be granted.” Zivkovic, 302 F.3d at 1087 (quoting Johnson, 975 F.2d at 609).

In this action, despite Defendant’s diligence, Plaintiff has not responded to discovery or 

otherwise participated in this litigation. Indeed, the Court has issued an order to show cause to 

address this and will take further action as necessary.

For good cause, Defendant’s motion is GRANTED. The Court extends the deadlines as 

follows:

Discovery Cut-Off: February 26, 2016

Dispositive Motion Deadline: April 26, 2016

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 1, 2015 /s/ Dennis L. Beck 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:13-cv-02109-DLB Document 41 Filed 09/01/15 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

Case 1:13-cv-02109-DLB Document 41 Filed 09/01/15 Page 3 of 3