Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_09-cv-01264/USCOURTS-caed-1_09-cv-01264-15/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

I. Introduction

Plaintiff Anthony Johnson (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner 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 

complaint, filed on July 21, 2009, against Defendants L. Gonzalez and A. Murrieta for excessive force 

in violation of the Eighth Amendment. 

Currently before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion to amend his complaint filed on October 25, 

2013. The Court finds an opposition unnecessary and the motion is deemed submitted. Local Rule 

230(l). 

II. Procedural Background

On May 25, 2010, the Court issued a Discovery and Scheduling Order. Pursuant to that order, 

the deadline to amend pleadings was November 25, 2010. (ECF No. 19.) Subsequent to that time, on 

March 30, 2011, Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment. On June 6, 2011, the thenANTHONY JOHNSON,

 Plaintiff,

v.

L. GONZALEZ, et al.,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 1:09-cv-01264-AWI-BAM PC

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO 

AMEND THE COMPLAINT

(ECF No. 94)

Case 1:09-cv-01264-BAM Document 97 Filed 11/04/13 Page 1 of 3
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

assigned Magistrate Judge recommended that Defendants’ motion for summary judgment be granted, 

relying in part on Plaintiff’s unanswered admissions. (ECF No. 70.) Plaintiff filed objections to the 

findings and recommendations, along with a request that the Court allow him to amend or to withdraw 

his admissions pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 36. (ECF No. 71.) On January 9, 2012, 

the Court adopted the findings and recommendations and granted summary judgment in favor of 

defendants. (ECF No. 77.) On that same day, the Clerk of the Court entered judgment in favor of 

Defendants. (ECF No. 78.) Plaintiff appealed. (ECF No. 83.)

On May 23, 2013, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals issued a memorandum finding that the 

District Court abused its discretion in declining to consider Plaintiff’s request to amend or withdraw 

his admissions under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 36(b). The Ninth Circuit determined that if 

Plaintiff’s request had been granted, it would have defeated summary judgment. Accordingly, the 

Ninth Circuit reversed the Court’s grant of summary judgment and remanded the matter. (ECF No. 

87.) The Ninth Circuit issued its formal mandate on June 18, 2013. (ECF No. 88.)

Following remand, on August 15, 2013, the Court vacated its order granting summary 

judgment and the entry judgment. The Court also granted Plaintiff’s request to withdraw his 

admissions and set a new dispositive motion deadline of November 1, 2013. (ECF No. 91.) 

III. Discussion

A. Legal Standard

Plaintiff requested leave to amend his complaint on October 25, 2013. However, the deadline 

set to file an amended complaint was November 25, 2010. Plaintiff’s request is therefore construed as 

one to amend the discovery and scheduling order pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16. 

Pursuant to Rule 16(b), a scheduling order “may be modified only for good cause and with the 

judge’s consent.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4). The “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 district 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.

///

Case 1:09-cv-01264-BAM Document 97 Filed 11/04/13 Page 2 of 3
3

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

B. Analysis

Here, Plaintiff has not provided any basis, much less good cause, to modify the discovery and 

scheduling order. Indeed, he has not provided the Court with any information regarding his proposed 

amendments. Plaintiff also has not provided any explanation for his delay in seeking to amend the 

complaint until this late stage of the proceedings. Plaintiff had adequate time to request leave to 

amend prior to the expiration of the deadline on November 25, 2010. Accordingly, the Court does not 

find good cause to modify the scheduling order for the purpose of amending the complaint.

IV. Conclusion and Order

For the reasons stated, Plaintiff’s motion to amend the complaint is DENIED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 1, 2013 /s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe _

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:09-cv-01264-BAM Document 97 Filed 11/04/13 Page 3 of 3