Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-01794/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-01794-20/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

SAUL BARRIOS PEREZ,

Plaintiff,

v.

DILL, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

CASE NO. 1:07-cv-01794-LJO-BAM PC

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATIONS AND DENYING

DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY

JUDGMENT

(ECF No. 82, 83, 89, 90, 92)

Plaintiff Saul Barrios Perez (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma

pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United

States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.

On October 23, 2012, the Magistrate Judge filed a Findings and Recommendations which

was served on the parties and which contained notice to the parties that any objections to the

Findings and Recommendations were to be filed within thirty days. On November 21, 2012,

Defendants filed an Objection. 

Defendants object to the Magistrate Judge declining to consider their untimely motion to

dismiss for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. The discovery and scheduling orders that

were issued in this action clearly set the deadline to bring an unenumerated Rule 12(b) motion and

stated that the pre-trial dispositive motion deadline did not apply to motions to dismiss for failure

to exhaust administrative remedies. (ECF No. 29 at 2 n.1; ECF No. 62 at 2 n.2.) 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, Zivkovic v. Southern California Edison Co., 302 F.3d 1080, 1087-88

1

Case 1:07-cv-01794-BAM Document 93 Filed 11/27/12 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

(9th Cir. 2002). To allow Defendants to bring their unenumerated rule 12(b) almost two years after

the deadline of May 9, 2010, and six months after the most recent deadline of September 15, 2011,

would render scheduling orders essentiallymeaningless, and directly interfere with courts’ attempts

to manage their dockets and with the standard course of litigation in actions such as this. Johnson

v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 610 (9th Cir. 1992) (“A scheduling order is not a

frivolous piece of paper, idly entered . . . .” (internal quotations and citation omitted)). Defendants

have failed to show good cause to modify the scheduling order, and the Court declines to consider

the untimely motion to dismiss for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. 

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this Court has conducted a

de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the Court finds the Findings

and Recommendations to be supported by the record and by proper analysis.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Findings and Recommendations, filed October 23, 2012, is adopted in full; 

2. Defendants’ Motion to for SummaryJudgment, filed March 2, 2012, is DENIED; and

3. This action is referred back to the Magistrate Judge to be set for trial.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 26, 2012 /s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill 

b9ed48 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2

Case 1:07-cv-01794-BAM Document 93 Filed 11/27/12 Page 2 of 2