Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-01472/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-01472-19/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

CORNELL BROWN, 

 Plaintiff,

 vs.

HARRIS, et al.,

 Defendants.

1:12-cv-01472-LJO-GSA-PC

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO 

MODIFY SCHEDULING ORDER

(Doc. 70.)

ORDER EXTENDING DISCOVERY AND

DISPOSITIVE MOTIONS DEADLINES 

FOR ALL PARTIES TO THIS ACTION

New Discovery Cut-Off Date: 08/31/2015

New Dispositive Motions Deadline: 10/30/2015

I. BACKGROUND

Cornell Brown (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis 

with this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This case now proceeds on 

Plaintiff’s initial Complaint filed on September 10, 2012, against defendant Harris for 

excessive force in violation of the Eighth Amendment, and against defendant Nelson for failure 

to protect Plaintiff in violation of the Eighth Amendment. (Doc. 1.) On August 19, 2014, the 

court issued a Scheduling Order establishing deadlines of April 19, 2015 for the completion of 

discovery, and June 29, 2015 for the parties to file pretrial dispositive motions. (Doc. 58.) On 

April 7, 2015, Defendants filed a motion to modify the Scheduling Order. (Doc. 70.)

Case 1:12-cv-01472-BAM Document 71 Filed 04/09/15 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

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, 

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). A party may obtain relief from the court=s deadline date for discovery by 

demonstrating good cause for allowing further discovery. Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4). 

Defendants request the court to vacate the current discovery and dispositive motions 

deadlines, pending Plaintiff return to the custody of the California Department of Corrections 

and Rehabilitation (CDCR). Defendants argue that because Plaintiff is presently housed at the 

Kern County Jail until at least May 19, 2015, it is difficult for Defendants to conduct a 

meaningful deposition, because Plaintiff does not have access to his legal paperwork or a law 

library and will be unable to adequately prepare for his deposition. Defendants also argue that 

a ruling on their pending motion for summary judgment may significantly narrow the scope of 

this case, leaving Plaintiff’s excessive force claim against defendant Harris as Plaintiff’s sole 

remaining claim.

The Court finds good cause to extend the discovery and dispositive motions deadlines

in this action, to allow for meaningful discovery. Should Defendants require a further 

extension of the deadlines, they should file a motion before the current deadlines expire. 

Accordingly, Defendants’ motion to modify the Scheduling Order shall be granted.

III. CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Defendants’ motion to modify the court's Scheduling Order, filed on April 7, 

2015, is GRANTED;

Case 1:12-cv-01472-BAM Document 71 Filed 04/09/15 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

2. The deadline for the completion of discovery is extended from April 19, 2015 to 

August 31, 2015 for all parties to this action;

3. The deadline for filing and serving pretrial dispositive motions is extended from 

June 29, 2015 to October 30, 2015 for all parties to this action; and

4. All other provisions of the court's August 19, 2014 Scheduling Order remain the 

same.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 8, 2015 /s/ Gary S. Austin 

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:12-cv-01472-BAM Document 71 Filed 04/09/15 Page 3 of 3