Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_01-cv-02110/USCOURTS-caed-2_01-cv-02110-4/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

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

United States District Court

Eastern District of California 

Larry Giraldes,

Plaintiff, No. Civ. S-01-2110 LKK PAN P

vs. Order

T. Prebula, et al.,

Defendants.

-oOoPlaintiff moves to modify the schedule made January 7, 2005,

to extend time for discovery. Defendants oppose.

 An order governing discovery was made April 16, 2004.

Pursuant to the original schedule, discovery closed December 27,

2004. The Clerk of the Court duly served the schedule on

plaintiff but the postal service returned it September 13, 2004,

because time for forwarding plaintiff’s mail expired. December

1, 2004, I recommended this action be dismissed. See L. R. 83-

183(b), 83-182(d). December 15, 2004, plaintiff notified the 

Case 2:01-cv-02110-LKK-EFB Document 93 Filed 11/30/05 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

court of his new address and so December 29, 2004, the clerk

served the findings and recommendations on plaintiff at his new

address. To compensate for the time lost because of plaintiff’s

address change, January 7, 2005, I amended the schedule so

discovery closed, and all motions necessary to resolve discovery

disputes were to be filed no later than March 2, 2005. 

A schedule may be modified only upon a showing of good

cause, viz., the moving party demonstrates he cannot meet the

deadline despite exercising due diligence. Fed. R. Civ. P.

16(b); Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 609

(9th Cir. 1992). 

Plaintiff asserts he could not timely complete discovery

because of his address change and because prison lockdowns have

limited his time in the law library. I once amended the schedule

to compensate for plaintiff’s address change and plaintiff does

not explain why he needed access to the law library to discover

facts.

Plaintiff fails to demonstrate he was unable to meet the

deadline despite due diligence.

I therefore deny plaintiff’s March 28, 2005, motion.

Dated: November 29, 2005. 

 /s/ Peter A. Nowinski 

 PETER A. NOWINSKI

 Magistrate Judge

Case 2:01-cv-02110-LKK-EFB Document 93 Filed 11/30/05 Page 2 of 2