Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_00-cv-05817/USCOURTS-caed-1_00-cv-05817-0/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 1The initial Scheduling Order was issued on May 11, 2001. (Doc. 59.) 

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOSH THOMAS,

Plaintiff,

v.

D.L. STEPHENS, et. al.,

Defendants.

 /

CV F 00 5817 AWI SMS P 

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION

TO SUBSTITUTE DEFENDANTS (Doc. 129) 

Josh Thomas (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in

this civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 

On September 30, 2004, Plaintiff moved to substitute in Samantha Reyes and R. Quinn

as Defendants in place of Doe Defendants. (Doc. 129.) 

Defendants filed their Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion on October 13, 2004. (Doc. 134.) 

On April 7, 2003, this Court re-set, and thereby extended, deadlines for the completion of

discovery, the filing of Amended Pleadings and dispositive motions.1 The deadline to Amend

Pleadings was set for July 17, 2003. (Doc. 82.) 

A. DISCUSSION

Pursuant to F.R.Civ.P. 16(b)(2) and (3), district courts must enter scheduling orders to

establish deadlines for, among other things, “to file motions” and “to complete discovery.” 

Scheduling orders may also include “the date or dates for conferences before trial, a final pretrial

Case 1:00-cv-05817-LJO-SMS Document 143 Filed 05/24/05 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

conference, and trial.” F.R.Civ.P. 16(b)(4). “A schedule shall not be modified except upon a

showing of good cause and by leave of the district judge or, when authorized by local rule, by a

magistrate judge.” F.R.Civ.P. 16(b). The scheduling order “shall control the subsequent course

of the action unless modified by a subsequent order.” F.R.Civ.P. 16(e).

Defendants argue that the First Amended Complaint filed by Plaintiff did not name any

Doe Defendants in relation to the deprivation of property claim. In addition, Defendants argue

that the Motion should be denied because Plaintiff’s request is untimely in that the Amended

Pleadings deadline expired in July of 2003. 

The Court has examined the record in this case and finds Defendants are correct that

Plaintiff’s Motion is untimely. The Amended Pleading deadline expired in July of 2003, yet

Plaintiff did not make his Motion until over a year later. Plaintiff’s Motion further fails to

address much less demonstrate good cause for the lengthy delay in requesting to Amend at this

late date. Thus, the Court can find no good cause warranting relief from the Scheduling Order. 

In addition, the Court has examined the First Amended Complaint and finds that Plaintiff

did not name any Doe Defendants in connection with his deprivation of property claim. The

Court’s Findings and Recommendations regarding dismissal of certain claims in the First

Amended Complaint addresses the deprivation of property claim but with respect only to

Defendant Leon. (Doc. 17.) Moreover, no Doe Defendants were identified by the Court in its

Order finding certain claims against certain Defendants cognizable. (Doc. 20.) Thus, the action

is limited to those Defendants and claims found cognizable. 

Accordingly, in light of the above and pursuant to Rule 16(b), Plaintiff’s Motion to

Substitute Defendants is DENIED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 24, 2005 /s/ Sandra M. Snyder 

icido3 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:00-cv-05817-LJO-SMS Document 143 Filed 05/24/05 Page 2 of 2