Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_10-cv-00447/USCOURTS-caed-1_10-cv-00447-37/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

WILLIAM P. GARCIA,

Plaintiff,

v.

CLARK, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:10-cv-00447 LJO DLB PC

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS’ 

MOTION TO MODIFY SCHEDULING 

ORDER 

[ECF No. 173]

Plaintiff William P. Garcia (“Plaintiff”) is a California state prisoner proceeding pro se in this 

civil action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff filed this action on March 12, 2010. 

On April 26, 2016, the Ninth Circuit granted the parties’ stipulation to vacate the dismissal 

and reinstate this case to consider Plaintiff’s claim for monetary damages based on allegations of 

past misconduct. On June 8, 2016, the Court rescheduled the trial confirmation hearing for 

December 1, 2016, and the trial for January 10, 2017.

On July 1, 2016, Defendants filed a motion to modify the scheduling order and vacate the 

hearing and trial dates. Defendants propose to bring a motion for summary judgment which they 

contend will potentially allow the matter to be disposed of without necessitating a trial. On July 28, 

2016, Plaintiff filed an opposition to the motion, and on August 2, 2016, Defendants filed a reply.

Modification of the pretrial scheduling order requires a showing of good cause. Fed. R. Civ. 

P. 16(b)(4). “The schedule may be modified ‘if it cannot reasonably be met despite the diligence of 

Case 1:10-cv-00447-LJO-GSA Document 176 Filed 08/04/16 Page 1 of 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 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.

Here, Defendants state a motion for summary judgment was not previously brought because 

Defendants had different representation. Defendants’ current counsel states she reviewed the case 

upon it being reassigned and determined a motion for summary judgment was appropriate and could 

dispose of much if not all of the claims in the case. Plaintiff argues that the motion should not be 

granted because, among other reasons, the motion is untimely filed. 

The Court does not find good cause to modify the scheduling order at this late date. As the 

parties note, the deadline for filing dispositive motions was December 15, 2011. Defendants’ 

attempt to bring a dispositive motion nearly five years after the deadline can certainly be described 

as untimely. While Defendants’ current counsel may have been diligent in litigating the case when 

the case was reassigned to her, this does not excuse the apparent lack of diligence exercised by 

previous counsel. In the alternative, if previous counsel acted diligently but determined at the time 

that a motion for summary judgment was not appropriate, it would be unfair to Plaintiff now to be 

required to relitigate the case merely because Defendants have been appointed new counsel. 

Therefore, the Court does not find good cause to modify the scheduling order.

Defendants also request a modification based on defense counsel’s unavailability on 

December 1, 2016, for the telephonic trial confirmation hearing and February 13, 2017, for the 

commencement of trial. Defendants’ request is denied because there is ample time to reassign the 

case to another attorney in the California Attorney General’s Office.

///

///

///

///

///

///

Case 1:10-cv-00447-LJO-GSA Document 176 Filed 08/04/16 Page 2 of 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

3

ORDER

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendants’ motion to modify the scheduling 

order is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 4, 2016 /s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill _____ 

UNITED STATES CHIEF DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:10-cv-00447-LJO-GSA Document 176 Filed 08/04/16 Page 3 of 3