Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_22-cv-01429/USCOURTS-caed-1_22-cv-01429-6/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JIM CAGE,

Plaintiff,

v.

A. JOHNSON, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No.: 1:22-cv-01429-CDB (PC)

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S 

MOTION TO EXTEND THE DEADLINE 

FOR THE FILING OF A DISPOSITIVE 

MOTION

(Doc. 35)

Plaintiff Jim Cage is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action 

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action proceeds on Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment excessive 

force claim against Defendant Rojas. 

I. INTRODUCTION

The Court issued its Discovery and Scheduling Order on January 25, 2024. (Doc. 26.) 

Relevant here, the deadline for the filing of any dispositive motion was set for December 5, 2024. 

(Id.) 

On December 2, 2024, Defendant filed an “Ex Parte Motion for Extension of Time to File 

Motion for Dispositive Motion.” (Doc. 35.) Defendant seeks a 21-day extension of the dispositive 

motion filing deadline. (Id.) 

//

Case 1:22-cv-01429-CDB Document 36 Filed 12/03/24 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

II. DISCUSSION

Pursuant to Rule 16(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a scheduling order “may 

be modified only for good cause and with the judge's consent.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4). This 

good cause standard “primarily considers the diligence of the party seeking the amendment.” 

Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 609 (9th Cir. 1992). The court may modify 

the scheduling order “if it cannot reasonably be met despite the diligence of the party seeking the 

extension.” Id. If the party was not diligent, the inquiry should end. Id.

Here, defense counsel Isha Vazirani attests that the litigation coordinator at California 

State Prison-Corcoran was contacted on November 26, 2024, concerning Vazirani’s request for 

assistance with scheduling meetings with employee witnesses and to discuss and finalize 

declarations in support of a motion for summary judgment on the merits of Plaintiff’s claims. 

(Doc. 35 at 3, ¶ 2.) Vazirani declares that as of December 2, 2024, and despite “following up,” 

there has been no response from the litigation coordinator. (Id.) Defense counsel notes that in 

light of the recent holiday it is likely “many staff members have been away from work and thus 

difficult to reach.” (Id.) Vazirani declares the witness declarations are essential to support the 

summary judgment motion and to provide important context concerning the issues. (Id., ¶ 4.) 

Counsel states this is Defendant’s first request for an extension of time, and it is not made for the 

purpose of harassment, undue delay, or any other improper purpose. (Id., ¶¶ 3, 4.) 

III. CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Accordingly, and for good cause shown, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Defendant’s request for a 21-day extension of time within which to file a motion for 

summary judgment (Doc. 35) is GRANTED; 

2. The deadline for filing a dispositive motion is extended from December 5, 2024, to 

December 26, 2024.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 3, 2024 ___________________ _

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:22-cv-01429-CDB Document 36 Filed 12/03/24 Page 2 of 2