Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_11-cv-01297/USCOURTS-caed-1_11-cv-01297-8/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MICHAEL VINCENT CISNEROS,

Plaintiff,

v.

J. NEUBARTH,

Defendant.

Case No. 1:11-cv-01297-LJO-BAM PC

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S 

MOTION TO MODIFY SCHEDULING 

ORDER

(ECF No. 42)

I. Background

Plaintiff Michael Vincent Cisneros (“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 Neubarth for deliberate indifference to medical needs in violation of the Eighth 

Amendment. 

On October 2, 2013, the Court issued a Discovery and Scheduling Order, which set the 

deadline to file dispositive motions as August 11, 2014. (ECF No. 23.) On August 11, 2014, 

Defendant Neubarth filed the instant motion seeking to modify the scheduling order and extend 

Case 1:11-cv-01297-LJO-BAM Document 43 Filed 08/12/14 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

the dispositive motion deadline an additional ten days to August 21, 2014. (ECF No. 42.) The 

Court finds a response unnecessary and the motion is deemed submitted.1 Local Rule 230(l). 

II. Discussion

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.

Defendant Neubarth explains that he and his counsel have been reviewing Plaintiff’s 

medical records, responding to discovery requests and preparing a motion for summary judgment. 

However, for the last few weeks, defense counsel has had intermittent and unexpected absences 

from the office due to issues involving the Family Medical Leave Act. (Declaration of Ellen 

Hung, ¶¶ 3, 4.) As a result, Defendant Neubarth requires a brief extension of time to complete his 

motion for summary judgment which may resolve some, if not all, of the issues in this case. 

III. Conclusion and Order

The Court finds that the current dispositive motion deadline cannot be met despite the 

diligence of Defendant Neubarth. Good cause appearing, Defendant Neubarth’s motion to 

modify the scheduling order is HEREBY GRANTED. The dispositive motion deadline is 

extended to August 21, 2014. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 12, 2014 /s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe _

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

 

1 Given the brief extension of time requested, Plaintiff will not be prejudiced by the 

inability to file a response.

Case 1:11-cv-01297-LJO-BAM Document 43 Filed 08/12/14 Page 2 of 2