Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_09-cv-00484/USCOURTS-caed-1_09-cv-00484-16/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 Barry Louis Lamon is appearing pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action 

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 

Now pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s request to amend the scheduling order to provide 

the parties an additional forty-five days to conduct discovery and file a dispositive motion, filed 

October 1, 2014. Pursuant to Local Rule 230(l), Defendants had twenty-one (21) days after service of 

the motion to file an opposition. Although no opposition has been filed, for the reasons explained 

below, Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate good cause for modification of the scheduling order. 

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

16(b)(4). AThe 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)). AIf 

BARRY LOUIS LAMON,

 Plaintiff,

v.

MAURICE JUNIOUS, et al.,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 1:09-cv-00484-AWI-SAB (PC)

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST TO 

EXTEND DISCOVERY AND DISPOSITIVE 

MOTION FILING DEADLINES

[ECF No. 104]

Case 1:09-cv-00484-AWI-SAB Document 108 Filed 11/06/14 Page 1 of 2
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

the party seeking the modification >was not diligent, the inquiry should end= and the motion to modify 

should not be granted.@ Id.

On April 15, 2014, an amended discovery and scheduling order was issued in this case setting 

the deadline for discovery as December 15, 2014, and the deadline to file dispositive motions as 

February 16, 2015. 

In the instant motion, Plaintiff fails to demonstrate good cause to justify amendment of the 

scheduling order to extend the discovery and dispositive motions deadlines by an additional forty-five 

days. Plaintiff’s only basis is that he has yet to complete discovery and a motion to dismiss Defendant 

Cohen for failure to effectuate proper service of process is pending. Such conclusory allegations are 

insufficient, at this juncture, to warrant extension of the discovery and dispositive motions deadlines 

set in this case, which have yet to expire. 

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s request to extend the discovery and dispositive motion deadlines is 

DENIED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 6, 2014 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:09-cv-00484-AWI-SAB Document 108 Filed 11/06/14 Page 2 of 2