Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-01298/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-01298-18/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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ALFRED VINCENT AMBRIZ,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-05-1298 RRB EFB P

vs.

SCOTT KERNAN, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

Plaintiff is a prisoner without counsel seeking relief for alleged civil rights violations. 

See 42 U.S. § 1983. On September 6, 2007, defendants filed a motion for an extension of time to

file and serve a motion for summary judgment. The court notes that the time for seeking

summary judgment was set in the May 1, 2007, scheduling order. Accordingly, the court

construes defendants’ motion as one to modify the scheduling order, which is governed by Rule

16 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

A schedule may be modified 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, dispositive motions must be filed no later than October 19,

2007. Defendants assert that counsel’s busy schedule makes it impossible comply with the 

Case 2:05-cv-01298-JAM-EFB Document 65 Filed 09/28/07 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

schedule. Such an assertion may satisfy the standard under Rule 6 of the Federal Rules of Civil

Procedure, but Rule 6 does not apply here. Counsel has not explained what he has done on this

case, or what remains to be done but cannot regardless of his diligence. Thus, it appears from

his motion that he simply has decided that this case is the least important in his case-load. This

is not a basis for modifying the schedule.

Defendant has failed to make the showing required to modify the schedule. Nevertheless,

in the interest of managing its docket and possibly eliminating or narrowing issues for trial, the

court will extend the time to file a dispositive motion.

Accordingly, it hereby is ORDERED:

1. Defendants’ September 6, 2007, motion for an extension of time to file a motion for

summary judgment, construed as a motion to modify the scheduling order, is granted;

2. Defendants shall have until no later than November 16, 2007, to file and serve a

dispositive motion. The court does not intend to extend this time. 

Dated: September 28, 2007.

Case 2:05-cv-01298-JAM-EFB Document 65 Filed 09/28/07 Page 2 of 2