Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00624/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00624-13/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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

GARRICK HARRINGTON,

Plaintiff,

v.

A. K. SCRIBNER, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

CASE NO. 1:05-cv-00624-OWW-GSA PC

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION

TO STRIKE

(Doc. 45)

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS’

REQUEST FOR LEAVE TO FILE LATE

MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT,

WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO RENEWAL

WITHIN THIRTY DAYS

(Doc. 44)

Plaintiff Garrick Harrington (“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 is proceeding on

Plaintiff’s amended complaint, filed April 28, 2006, against Defendants Hicks, Furholdt, Wood, and

Lowden for violating the Eighth Amendment, and against Defendants Yamamoto, Poulos, and

Scribner for violating the Equal Protection Clause. 

Pursuant to the Court’s scheduling order filed on July 9, 2007, the deadline for filing pretrial

dispositive motions was May 14, 2008. On May 19, 2008, Defendants filed a request for leave to

file a late motion for summary judgment, along with the proposed motion. In response, Plaintiff

filed a motion to strike the request and motion for summary judgment on June 10, 2008. 

Parties are permitted to seek modification of a scheduling order to allow a late motion. Fed.

R. Civ. P. 16(b). Therefore, Plaintiff’s motion to strike the request is denied. Further, because the

Case 1:05-cv-00624-DAD-MJS Document 46 Filed 12/12/08 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

motion for summary judgment has not yet been accepted for filing, Plaintiff’s motion to strike it is

denied.

“A scheduling order shall not be modified except upon a showing of good cause” and by

leave of court. Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b). Modification of the pretrial scheduling order requires a

showing of good cause. Id. “The schedule may be modified ‘if it cannot reasonably be met despite

the diligence of the party seeking the extension.’” Zivkovic v. Southern California Edison Co., 302

F.3d 1080, 1087 (9th Cir. 2002)(quoting Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 607

(9th Cir. 1992)). “If the party seeking the modification ‘was not diligent, the inquiry should end’ and

the motion to modify should not be granted.” Id. 

In this instance, Defendants did not support their request with any evidence, did not make

a showing of due diligence, and did not offer any explanation for their failure to file the request on

or before May 14, 2008, as required under the Court’s scheduling order. Because Defendants have

not met their burden, their request must be denied. The denial is without prejudice to renew it within

thirty days.

For the reasons set forth herein, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s motion to strike, filed June 10, 2008, is DENIED; and

2. Defendants’ request for leave to file a late motion for summary judgment, filed May

19, 2008, is DENIED, without prejudice to renew it within thirty (30) days.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: December 12, 2008 /s/ Gary S. Austin 

6i0kij UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-00624-DAD-MJS Document 46 Filed 12/12/08 Page 2 of 2