Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-00225/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-00225-16/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

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Plaintiff Wilbur Atcherley (“Plaintiff”) is a prisoner in the custody of the California 

Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (“CDCR”). Plaintiff is proceeding pro se and in forma 

pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The action is currently in the 

discovery phase.

Pursuant to the March 18, 2014, Discovery and Scheduling Order, the deadline to amend is 

July 15, 2014, the discovery cut-off is August 14, 2014, and the dispositive motion deadline is October 

13, 2014.

On July 2, 2014, Plaintiff filed a request to extend the above deadlines by 45 days. The Court 

deems the motion suitable without opposition. Local Rule 230(l).

WILBUR ATCHERLEY,

 Plaintiff,

v.

CLARK, et al.,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 1:12cv00225 LJO DLB (PC)

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO 

MODIFY THE DISCOVERY AND SCHEDULING 

ORDER

(Document 94)

Deadline to Amend: August 29, 2014

Discovery Cut-off: September 29, 2014

Dispositive Motions: November 26, 2014

Case 1:12-cv-00225-LJO-DLB Document 97 Filed 07/10/14 Page 1 of 3
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

DISCUSSION

Modification of the pretrial scheduling order requires a showing of good cause. Fed. R. Civ. P. 

16(b)(4). “The schedule may be modified ‘if it cannot reasonably be met despite the diligence of the 

party seeking the extension.’” Zivkovic v. Southern California Edison Co., 302 F.3d 1080, 1087 (9th 

Cir. 2002) (quoting Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 607 (9th Cir. 1992)). “If 

the party seeking the modification ‘was not diligent, the inquiry should end’ and the motion to modify 

should not be granted.” Id.

As Plaintiff points out, this action is proceeding against ten Defendants who filed answers over 

a two-month period due to differences in service dates. As a result, for at least some Defendants, the 

Discovery and Scheduling order became applicable to them two months after the order was initially 

issued.1

Moreover, it appears that Plaintiff has served a large amount of discovery and the Court has 

therefore granted Defendants numerous extensions of time to respond. 

Finally, Plaintiff submitted a Second Amended Complaint on June 23, 2014. As Plaintiff did 

not have leave to amend, the Court struck the complaint on June 27, 2014. Based on Plaintiff’s 

statements in the instant motion, he moved to amend as part of his opposition to Defendant 

Anderson’s pending motion to dismiss. Plaintiff states that the proposed Second Amended Complaint 

corrects the deficiencies raised in the motion to dismiss. However, because the pleading was not 

clearly labeled as a motion to amend, it was not docketed as a motion to amend. As a result, the Court 

issued the order striking the pleading. Extending the deadline to amend will permit Plaintiff to file a 

clearly labeled motion to amend, along with his proposed Second Amended Complaint. If Plaintiff 

files a motion to amend, Defendants may oppose the motion pursuant to Local Rule 230(l).

 

1

Although Defendant Anderson filed an answer, the Court granted a request to strike the answer after new counsel was 

appointed. Defendant Anderson filed a motion to dismiss on May 27, 2014, and the motion is pending.

Case 1:12-cv-00225-LJO-DLB Document 97 Filed 07/10/14 Page 2 of 3
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

Accordingly, the Court finds good cause to modify the Discovery and Scheduling Order as to 

all parties and GRANTS Plaintiff’s motion. The new deadlines are as follows:

Deadline to amend pleadings: August 29, 2014

Discovery cut-off: September 29, 2014

Dispositive motion deadline: November 26, 2014

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 9, 2014 /s/ Dennis L. Beck 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:12-cv-00225-LJO-DLB Document 97 Filed 07/10/14 Page 3 of 3