Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-00118/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-00118-5/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

JANICE SUGITA, 

 Plaintiff,

v.

B. PARKER, et al., 

Defendants.

CASE NO. 1:13-cv-00118-AWI-MJS (PC)

 ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S 

MOTION TO MODIFY SECOND 

SCHEDULING ORDER

 (ECF No. 40)

I. PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil 

rights action brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1983. (ECF Nos. 4 & 10.) The action 

proceeds on a First Amendment retaliation claim against Defendant Longia.1 (ECF No. 

10.)

The Court’s Discovery and Scheduling Order set December 8, 2014 as the 

 

1 The Court granted Defendants Salinas and Longia’s motions for summary judgment on Eighth 

Amendment medical indifference claims. (ECF No. 36.)

Case 1:13-cv-00118-AWI-MJS Document 41 Filed 09/16/15 Page 1 of 4
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

deadline for filing dispositive motions. (ECF No. 16.) Upon Defendants’ request, the 

Court extended that deadline to January 30, 2015. (ECF No. 26.) Defendants’ filed 

motions for summary judgment, and the Court entered findings and recommendations to 

grant the motions on May 15, 2015. (ECF No. 34.) On July 1, 2015, the District Court 

adopted the findings and recommendations. (ECF No. 36.) 

On July 6, 2015, the Court entered the Second Scheduling Order setting a pretrial 

conference for October 5, 2015 and a trial date of December 1, 2015. (ECF No. 37.) 

The Court also ordered the parties to notify the Court within 30 days whether they 

consented to Magistrate Judge jurisdiction. Plaintiff has consented, but Defendant has 

failed to respond within the requisite time period. (ECF No. 38.) Defendant now seeks 

to modify the Court’s Second Scheduling Order (ECF No. 37) in order to file a motion for 

judgment on the pleadings. (ECF No. 40.) 

II. MOTION TO MODIFY SCHEDULING ORDER

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(b)(4) allows the Court to modify its scheduling 

order for good cause. The “good cause” standard focuses primarily on the diligence of 

the party seeking the amendment. Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 

604, 609 (9th Cir.1992). “[C]arelessness is not compatible with a finding of diligence and 

offers no reason for a grant of relief.” Id. “Although the existence or degree of prejudice 

to the party opposing the modification might supply additional reasons to deny a motion, 

the focus of the inquiry is upon the moving party's reasons for seeking modification.” Id. 

Therefore, parties must “diligently attempt to adhere to th[e] schedule throughout the 

subsequent course of the litigation.” Jackson v. Laureate, Inc., 186 F.R.D. 605, 607 

(E.D. Cal. 1999). The Court has wide discretion to extend time, Jenkins v. 

Commonwealth Land Title Ins. Co., 95 F.3d 791, 795 (9th Cir. 1996), provided a party 

demonstrates some justification for the issuance of the enlargement order. Fed. R. Civ. 

P. 6(b)(1); Ginett v. Fed. Express Corp., 166 F.3d 1213 at 5* (6th Cir. 1998).

Case 1:13-cv-00118-AWI-MJS Document 41 Filed 09/16/15 Page 2 of 4
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

3

Here, Defendant Longia seeks additional time, until September 18, 2015, to file a 

motion for judgment on the pleadings and to continue the pretrial conference to October 

26, 2015. Defendant argues that he needs additional time because the retaliation claim 

was not easily identified in Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint. Defendant contends that 

briefing the motion will not delay trial (which is over two months away), it may save the 

parties and the Court the time and expense of trial, he likely will prevail on the motion 

(since the Court granted summary judgment motion on the Eighth Amendment claim), 

and Defendant would be prejudiced if the motion is not granted and he is denied the 

opportunity to raise the defense.

Defendant has not demonstrated good cause for modifying the Court’s Second 

Scheduling Order. Defendant’s only basis for not raising the issue sooner or filing a 

timely dispositive motion on Plaintiff’s First Amendment retaliation claim is that the claim 

was not readily identifiable in the First Amended Complaint. However, the Court 

screened Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint and explicitly found that Plaintiff had stated 

a retaliation claim against Defendant -- clearly placing Defendant on notice of the claim. 

(ECF No. 10.) The Court also noted in a subsequent order that the case was proceeding 

on that claim. (ECF No. 23.) It thus appears that responsibility for the failure to file a 

dispositive motion on the claim within the requisite time lies squarely upon Defense 

counsel. Counsel’s inadvertence or carelessness fails to meet the “good cause” 

standard. See Johnson, 975 F.2d at 609.

Moreover, even if Defendant did not become aware of the existence of the claim 

prior to the Court’s July 1, 2015, ruling on the motions for summary judgment, Defendant 

has not demonstrated diligence in requesting modification since then. The Second 

Scheduling Order was entered on July 6, 2015. Defendant did not seek modification of it

until September 10, 2015. Defendant offers no explanation for the delay. 

Case 1:13-cv-00118-AWI-MJS Document 41 Filed 09/16/15 Page 3 of 4
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

4

The Defendant’s failure to comply with the Court’s order to notify the Court 

regarding consent to Magistrate Judge jurisdiction does not reflect well on counsel or on 

his request for more time. (ECF No. 37.)

III. ORDER

Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Defendant’s motion to modify the Second Scheduling Order is DENIED. 

(ECF No. 40.); and

2. Defendant must notify the Court whether he consents to Magistrate Judge 

jurisdiction within seven (7) days of service of this order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 16, 2015 /s/Michael J. Seng 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:13-cv-00118-AWI-MJS Document 41 Filed 09/16/15 Page 4 of 4