Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_16-cv-01540/USCOURTS-caed-1_16-cv-01540-7/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Federal Question: Bivens Act

---

EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR EXTENSION OF DATES; [PROPOSED] ORDER 1

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

29

30

Attorneys for Defendant Christopher Baker

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SHANNON WILLIAMS,

Plaintiff,

v.

OFFICER BAKER; WARDEN PAUL 

COPENHAVER; OFFICER BORJA; ASS. 

WARDEN SNYDER,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

1:16-cv-001540 DAD-MJS

EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR 

EXTENSION OF DATES; ORDER

Defendant Christopher Baker requests to further modify the discovery and dispositive motion 

dates to allow for additional time to conduct focused discovery and take the deposition of Plaintiff 

Shannon Williams (“Plaintiff”), a prisoner proceeding pro se regarding conduct while imprisoned at 

United States Penitentiary Atwater, based on the pending motion for summary adjudication that may 

eliminate one of the two causes of action. Defendant acted diligently in filing his dispositive motion and 

good cause exists for approximately a ninety-day continuance of the current discovery and dispositive 

motion filing dates to allow additional time for a ruling on the motion. 

GOOD CAUSE EXISTS TO CONTINUE THE DATES

BASED ON THE PENDING DISPOSITIVE MOTION

Modification of a scheduling order requires a showing of good cause and due diligence. Fed. R. 

Civ. Proc. 16(b); Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 609 (9th Cir. 1992). To 

McGREGOR W. SCOTT

United States Attorney

ALYSON A. BERG

Assistant United States Attorney

2500 Tulare Street, Suite 4401

Fresno, California 93721

Telephone: (559) 497-4000

Facsimile: (559) 497-4099

Case 1:16-cv-01540-DAD-HBK Document 41 Filed 04/09/18 Page 1 of 4
EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR EXTENSION OF DATES; [PROPOSED] ORDER 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

29

30

establish good cause, the party seeking the modification of a scheduling order must generally show that 

even with the exercise of due diligence, they cannot meet the requirement of the order. Id. The court 

may also consider the prejudice to the party opposing the modification. Id. 

This lawsuit is a Bivens1action filed by Williams, a federal inmate proceeding pro se, against 

former BOP Correctional Officer Christopher Baker, alleging a claim of excessive force and a separate 

claim for retaliation arising from an incident on October 13, 2014, at United States Penitentiary Atwater. 

ECF No. 12. On September 21, 2017, Defendant filed a potentially dispositive motion for summary 

adjudication on the claim for retaliation because Williams never filed an administrative grievance with 

the BOP alleging any purported retaliatory statements by Officer Baker. ECF No. 30. The briefing on 

this motion was completed on November 20, 2017.

2

 ECF Nos. 31, 34. Findings and Recommendations 

were issued on February 28, 2018. ECF No. 38. Defendant Baker filed his response to the Findings 

and Recommendations on March 14, 2018. ECF No. 39. The deadline for Williams to respond to 

Defendant Baker’s response expired on March 28, 2018, without any filing by Williams. ECF No. 38. 

Currently, the matter is under submission and it is anticipated that after further Findings and 

Recommendations are issued, the parties will evaluate the need to respond before the Findings and 

Recommendations are sent to the District Judge for a final ruling. Accordingly, the current discovery 

deadline of May 7, 2018, may expire prior to a final ruling on Defendant’s motion for summary 

adjudication of the retaliation claim for failure to exhaust. 

After a ruling is made that could eliminate one of Williams’ two causes of action, this will 

narrow the written discovery as well as the areas to cover in Williams’ deposition. Accordingly, the 

parties resources are conserved by extending the current deadlines approximately ninety-days to August 

6, 2018, for completing discovery and the dispositive motion filing deadline to November 19, 2018, to 

allow for a ruling on the motion that can potentially remove one of the causes of action. See United 

 

1

Bivens v. Six Unknown Agents, 403 U.S. 388 (1971).

2 After Defendant answered the Complaint, a Scheduling Order was issued setting the dates of 

September 28, 2017 for an exhaustion motion, February 28, 2018 as the discovery deadline and May 

7, 2018 for the dispositive motion filing deadline. ECF No. 27. 

Case 1:16-cv-01540-DAD-HBK Document 41 Filed 04/09/18 Page 2 of 4
EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR EXTENSION OF DATES; [PROPOSED] ORDER 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

29

30

States v. W.R. Grace, 526 F.3d 499, 509 (9th Cir. 2008) (court's inherent power to control its docket).3 

Additionally, no prejudice will be suffered by this extension of approximately ninety-days for the 

discovery and dispositive motion deadlines as the operative pleading was only recognized as of May 5, 

2017, and no trial date has been set in this action.4 ECF No. 23. 

Accordingly, for good cause showing, including the saving of time and resources in allowing 

additional time for a ruling on the pending motion for summary adjudication, Defendant requests the

discovery and dispositive motion filing deadlines be extended approximately ninety-days. 

Respectfully submitted,

Dated: April 5, 2018 McGREGOR W. SCOTT

 United States Attorney

By: /s/Alyson A. Berg

ALYSON A. BERG

Assistant U.S. Attorney

Attorneys for Defendant

PROPOSED ORDER

For good cause showing, the discovery deadline is now continued to August 6, 2018, and the 

dispositive motion filing deadline to November 19, 2018. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 6, 2018 /s/Michael J. Seng 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

 

3

 In an abundance of caution, Defendant noticed the deposition of Plaintiff for May 3, 2018 in 

compliance with the Court’s current order. .

4

 Williams is serving a 480-month aggregate sentence for one count of conspiracy to distribute and 

possession with intent to distribute marijuana in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846 and one count of money 

laundering in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1956(h). He is eligible for release for good time conduct on 

April 16, 2044. 

Case 1:16-cv-01540-DAD-HBK Document 41 Filed 04/09/18 Page 3 of 4
EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR EXTENSION OF DATES; [PROPOSED] ORDER 4

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

29

30

Case 1:16-cv-01540-DAD-HBK Document 41 Filed 04/09/18 Page 4 of 4