Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_03-cv-05490/USCOURTS-caed-1_03-cv-05490-17/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

ANTHONY SAMUEL CATO,

Plaintiff,

v.

DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION

TERHUNE, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

CASE NO. 1:03-CV-05490-AWI-LJO-P

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION

FOR A SECOND EXTENSION OF TIME TO

COMPLY WITH COURT’S ORDER OF APRIL

27, 2006

(Doc. 153)

Plaintiff AnthonySamuel Cato (“plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma

pauperis in a civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. By order filed April 27, 2006, the

court (1) opened discovery as to defendants Jackson, Williams, Rojas, Smith, Alcantar, Cassillas,

Hernandez, Romero, Licon, Espinoza, Molina, Cruz, Chambell, and Reynoso for the limited purpose

of providing plaintiff with an opportunity to obtain further identifying information for these

defendants, (2) ordered plaintiff to provide further information on the locations of defendants within

ninety days, and (3) warned plaintiff that if he failed to provide the court with new information on

defendants, they would be dismissed from this action, without prejudice, pursuant to Federal Rule

of Civil Procedure 4(m). (Doc. 120.) On July 31, 2006, plaintiff filed a motion seeking an extension

of time to conduct discovery to ascertain information on the unserved defendants. (Doc. 131.) On

August 25, 2006, the court granted plaintiff’s motion and set a new deadline for October 2, 2006.

(Doc. 151.) As set forth in the August 25 order, since the issuance of the court’s April 27 order,

defendants Brown, Casillas, Espinoza, Hernandez, Licon, Rojas, and Romero waived service or were

Case 1:03-cv-05490-AWI-GSA Document 157 Filed 11/15/06 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

27

28

2

personally served and made an appearance in this action, and defendant Jackson was subject to an

order to show cause. (Docs. 142, 150.) Therefore, of the fourteen defendants plaintiff was directed

to provide further information on, information was needed only for defendants Williams, Smith,

Alcantar, Molina, Cruz, Chambell, and Reynoso. (Doc. 150.) On October 4, 2006, plaintiff filed

a second motion seeking an extension of time to comply with the court’s order of April 27.

Plaintiff’s motion does not demonstrate good cause for an extension. Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b).

The motion is devoid of information concerning what plaintiff has been doing over the past six

months in an effort to comply with the order or why another extension of thirty days would make

any difference in his ability to comply with the court’s order. Because plaintiff’s motion does not

show good cause for the requested extension, it shall be denied. Zivkovic v. Southern California

Edison Co., 302 F.3d 1080, 1087-88 (9th Cir. 2002).

Accordingly, plaintiff’s motion for an extension of time is HEREBY DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 15, 2006 /s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill 

b9ed48 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:03-cv-05490-AWI-GSA Document 157 Filed 11/15/06 Page 2 of 2