Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-01299/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-01299-30/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

RAHN G. THOMPSON, 

 Plaintiff,

 vs.

STATE OF CALIFORNIA, et al.,

 Defendants.

1:07-cv-01299-LJO-GSA-PC

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO 

MODIFY SCHEDULING ORDER

(Doc. 111.)

ORDER EXTENDING DISPOSITIVE 

MOTIONS DEADLINE FOR ALL PARTIES 

TO THIS ACTION

New Dispositive Motions Deadline: 03/20/2014

I. BACKGROUND

Plaintiff is a prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 

' 1983. Plaintiff filed the Complaint commencing this action on September 5, 2007. (Doc. 1.) 

This case now proceeds on the Second Amended Complaint filed by Plaintiff on November 10, 

2009, against defendants Tucker, Green, Lee, Rincon, Hernandez, Deathridge, and Huckabay 

(collectively “Defendants”) for failing to protect Plaintiff, in violation of the Eighth 

Amendment. (Doc. 25.)

On April 10, 2013, the Court issued a Scheduling Order establishing deadlines for the 

parties, including a deadline of February 18, 2014 for the parties to file pretrial dispositive 

motions. (Doc. 99.) On February 14, 2014, Defendants filed a motion to modify the 

Scheduling Order. (Doc. 111.) 

II. MOTION TO MODIFY SCHEDULING ORDER

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

16(b), and good cause requires a showing of due diligence, Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, 

Case 1:07-cv-01299-LJO-GSA Document 112 Filed 02/19/14 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

Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 609 (9th Cir. 1992). To 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. If the party seeking to amend the 

scheduling order fails to show due diligence the inquiry should end and the court should not 

grant the motion to modify. Zivkovic v. Southern California Edison, Co., 302 F.3d 1080, 1087 

(9th Cir. 2002). 

Defendants request a fourteen-day extension of the dispositive motions deadline

because despite their due diligence, they have been unable to contact one of the Defendants to 

obtain a declaration in support of Defendants’ motion for summary judgment. 

The Court finds good cause to extend the dispositive motions deadline in this action for

all parties to this action until March 20, 2014. Therefore, Defendants’ motion to modify the 

Scheduling Order shall be granted.

III. CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing and good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Defendants’ motion to modify the Court's Scheduling Order, filed on February 

14, 2014, is GRANTED;

2. The deadline for the parties to submit pretrial dispositive motions is extended 

from February 18, 2014 to March 20, 2014 for all parties to this action; and

3. All other provisions of the court's April 10, 2013 Scheduling Order remain the 

same.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 18, 2014 /s/ Gary S. Austin 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE DEAC_Signature-END:

6i0kij8d

Case 1:07-cv-01299-LJO-GSA Document 112 Filed 02/19/14 Page 2 of 2