Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-01831/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-01831-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983pr Prisoner Civil Rights

---

1

18-cv-1831-WQH-AGS

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

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

David RADEMAKER,

Plaintiff,

v.

J. JUAREZ, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No.: 18-cv-1831-WQH-AGS

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S 

REQUEST FOR EXTENSION (ECF 

No. 43)

In his motion for injunctive relief,

1 plaintiff also requests an extension to the 

scheduling order. (ECF No. 43, at 7.) The requested extension is DENIED. 

Plaintiff David Rademaker, a state inmate proceeding pro se, requests additional

time to achieve mental stability to litigate his ongoing cases. But this Court previously 

granted an extension for this same reason following Rademaker’s hospitalization. (See ECF 

No. 41.) A scheduling order “may be modified only for good cause and with the judge’s 

consent.” Fed R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4). Good cause exists if the scheduling order “cannot 

reasonably be met despite the diligence of the party seeking the extension.” Johnson v. 

Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 609 (9th Cir. 1992). The court “is given broad 

discretion in supervising the pretrial phase of the litigation and its decisions regarding the 

 

1 Plaintiff’s motion for injunctive relief is addressed in a separate Report and 

Recommendation. 

Case 3:18-cv-01831-WQH-AGS Document 56 Filed 01/23/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 2
2

18-cv-1831-WQH-AGS

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

preclusive effect of a pretrial order . . . will not be disturbed unless they evidence a clear 

abuse of discretion.” Id. at 607. Rademaker has not shown why he requires additional time 

beyond the previous extension and fails to suggest that he cannot reasonably meet the 

current deadline. (See ECF No. 41.) 

For these reasons, the Court denies Rademaker’s requested extension. But the 

request is denied without prejudice, in the event Rademaker is able to satisfy the required 

showing sometime in the future. 

Dated: January 23, 2020

Case 3:18-cv-01831-WQH-AGS Document 56 Filed 01/23/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 2