Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_18-cv-01669/USCOURTS-caed-1_18-cv-01669-8/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

KYREE BREEDLOVE,

Plaintiff,

v.

FIGUEROA, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:18-cv-01669-DAD-BAM (PC)

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S FIFTH

MOTION TO MODIFY DISCOVERY AND 

SCHEDULING ORDER

(ECF No. 35)

Dispositive Motion Deadline: May 1, 2021

Plaintiff Kyree Breedlove (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma 

pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action proceeds against 

Defendant Figueroa for excessive force in violation of the Eighth Amendment.

Pursuant to the Court’s February 6, 2020 Discovery and Scheduling orders and 

Defendant’s subsequent motions to modify the discovery and scheduling order, the deadline for 

filing dispositive motions, including motions for summary judgment for failure to exhaust 

administrative remedies, is April 1, 2020. (ECF Nos. 25–29, 33–34.) The original deadline 

motions for summary judgment for failure to exhaust administrative remedies was May 6, 2020, 

and the original deadline for filing all other dispositive motions was December 17, 2020. (ECF 

No. 25.)

Currently before the Court is Defendant’s fifth motion for extension of the dispositive 

motion deadline, filed April 1, 2021. (ECF No. 35.) Defendant argues that since the Court 

Case 1:18-cv-01669-JLT-BAM Document 36 Filed 04/02/21 Page 1 of 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

2

granted Defendant’s previous motion to modify the discovery and dispositive motion deadlines in 

this action, Defendant has completed substantial work on his dispositive motion. However, 

Defendant is still waiting for the CDCR Office of Appeals (“OOA”) to provide a signed 

declaration regarding Plaintiff’s appeal history. Defense counsel has been advised the OOA is 

working through a backlog of similar declaration requests and requires additional time to work on 

a declaration for this case. As in prior motions, defense counsel argues that he has been diligent 

in attending to deadlines in this matter by obtaining and reviewing Plaintiff’s central file records; 

preparing for and attending an early settlement conference in this case on February 4, 2020; 

interviewing Defendant regarding Plaintiff’s allegations; and took Plaintiff’s deposition on 

October 30, 2020. In light of these circumstances, Defendant requests a thirty-day extension of 

the dispositive motion deadline to provide time for Defendant to finish drafting the dispositive 

motion. (Id.) Although Plaintiff has not had an opportunity to respond to the motion, the Court 

finds a response unnecessary and the motion is deemed submitted. Local Rule 230(l).

Pursuant to Rule 16(b), a scheduling order “may be modified only for good cause and 

with the judge’s consent.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4). The “good cause” standard “primarily 

considers the diligence of the party seeking the amendment.” Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, 

Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 609 (9th Cir. 1992). The court may modify the scheduling order “if it cannot 

reasonably be met despite the diligence of the party seeking the extension.” Id. If the party was 

not diligent, the inquiry should end. Id.

Having considered Defendant’s moving papers, the Court finds good cause to continue the 

dispositive motion deadline in this action. Defendant has been diligent in preparing the 

dispositive motion and appears to be awaiting the completion of only one declaration in support 

of the motion. Finally, the Court finds that Plaintiff will not be prejudiced by the extension 

requested here.

However, the Court notes that the extended deadline is now one year from the original 

deadline for the filing of summary judgment motions for failure to exhaust administrative 

remedies, and nearly five months from the original deadline for all other dispositive motions. 

Despite the challenges of taking Plaintiff’s deposition and preparing the dispositive motion during 

Case 1:18-cv-01669-JLT-BAM Document 36 Filed 04/02/21 Page 2 of 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

3

the COVID-19 pandemic, the extensions requested in the instant action are becoming

disproportionate to the complexity of the claim at issue. Defendant is warned that further 

requests for extension of this deadline—including extensions of the merits dispositive 

motion deadline—will be subject to a narrow interpretation of what constitutes good cause, 

and Plaintiff will be permitted the opportunity to file a response to any future requests.

Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED as follows:

1. Defendant’s fifth motion to modify the discovery and scheduling order, (ECF No. 35), is

GRANTED; and

2. The deadline for filing all dispositive motions, including motions for summary judgment 

for failure to exhaust administrative remedies, shall be filed on or before May 1, 2021.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 2, 2021 /s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe _

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:18-cv-01669-JLT-BAM Document 36 Filed 04/02/21 Page 3 of 3