Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_03-cv-05422/USCOURTS-caed-1_03-cv-05422-13/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 The time within which Plaintiff has to respond to the motion has not yet expired. Local Rule 78-230(m). 1

However, in light of the denial of the motion, there is no prejudice to Plaintiff by the issuance of this order. 

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

BENNY TAPIA,

Plaintiff,

v.

WOODS, GLAZIER, FISCHER, 

YARBOROUGH, TERHUNE, 

AND ALAMEIDA,

Defendants.

 /

CASE NO. 1:03-cv-05422-LJO-SMS PC

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION

TO MODIFY SCHEDULING ORDER AND

FILE LATE PRETRIAL DISPOSITIVE

MOTION

(Doc. 93)

I. Procedural History 

Plaintiff Benny Tapia (“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 against on

Plaintiff’s complaint, filed April 10, 2003, on the remaining claims that Defendants Yarborough,

Glazier, Fischer, and Woods violated Plaintiff’s rights under the Due Process Clause of the

Fourteenth Amendment in conjunction with Plaintiff’s gang validation and confinement in the

Security Housing Unit (“SHU”), and that Defendants Alameida and Terhune violated Plaintiff’s

rights under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment with respect to the sufficiency

of the periodic reviews of Plaintiff’s Security Housing Unit confinement. This matter is set for jury

trial on March 3, 2008. On October 12, 2007, Defendants filed a motion seeking leave to modify

the scheduling order and file a pretrial dispositive motion.1

Case 1:03-cv-05422-LJO -SMS Document 94 Filed 10/17/07 Page 1 of 4
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

II. Motion to Modify Scheduling Order and File Dispositive Motion

Defendants seek leave to file a dispositive motion on the grounds that this action is barred

by the statute of limitations and Plaintiff does not have a protected liberty interest in avoiding SHU

confinement. The deadline for the completion of all discovery was April 21, 2005, and the deadline

to file pretrial dispositive motions was June 21, 2005. 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 (9th Cir. 2002). 

This action has been defended by the Attorney General’s Office since Defendants made an

appearance in this action. According to the Court’s docket, five different Deputy Attorney Generals

have been assigned to this case and three pretrial dispositive motions have been filed on behalf of

Defendants. The most recent reassignment, to Defendants’ current counsel, occurred after earlier

motions for summary judgment were filed. Defendants argue that previous counsel apparently

overlooked the statute of limitations and lack of a liberty interest as grounds for dismissal, and

Defendants ask that the Court grant them leave to file a dispositive motion addressing those issues.

Defendants’ contention that previous counsel overlooked the lack of a liberty interest

misstates the record. The argument was not overlooked. Defendants conceded the existence of a

liberty interest in their motion for summary judgment and this concession was specifically pointed

out to current counsel by the Court in the Pretrial Order. (Doc. 59-2, 1:16-17; Doc. 90, 20:1-3; 91.)

In any event, Defendants have not shown good cause to modify the scheduling order. The

reassignment of a case to a new Deputy Attorney General who would like to defend it differently

from the way his predecessors did is not good cause. The Attorney General’s Office had ample

opportunity to raise the grounds for dismissal that current counsel would like to raise, but the

attorneys assigned to the case at the time did not do so. The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Local

Rules, and Court’s scheduling orders are not to be set aside or disregarded because an attorney new

to the case has different ideas any more than they are to be set aside or disregarded because a plaintiff

later discovers additional issues he or she would like to now litigate. See Johnson v. Mammoth

Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 610 (9th Cir. 1992) (Good cause to modify scheduling order to

amend not shown where plaintiff’s “attorneys filed pleadings and conducted discovery but failed to

Case 1:03-cv-05422-LJO -SMS Document 94 Filed 10/17/07 Page 2 of 4
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

pay attention to the responses they received.”). Indeed, the Court is confident based on its

experience with cases such as this that the Attorney General’s Office is not inclined to overlook the

need to show good cause for modification of a scheduling order when the request is made by the

plaintiff in the case. The Court must be consistent in its application of the law, no matter the side.

Reassignment of cases such as this to different Deputy Attorney Generals during the course

of the proceedings is the rule rather than the exception. To allow a newly assigned attorneys to

obtain modification of scheduling orders simply because they spot issues not raised by their

predecessors, either intentionally or inadvertently, would render scheduling orders essentially

meaningless, and directly interfere with courts’ attempts to manage their dockets and with the

standard course of litigation in actions such as this. Johnson, 975 F.2d at 610 (“A scheduling order

is not a frivolous piece of paper, idly entered . . . .” (internal quotations and citation omitted)). 

Defendants’ argument that it is in the interest of the conservation of judicial resources to

allow their late motion leads to the same result: a meaningless scheduling conference order. It is

in the interest of conservation of judicial resources for Defendants to comply with Court’s scheduling

orders and raise all applicable grounds for dismissal or judgment as a matter of law in a timely filed

motion. The requirement that parties abide by the Court’s scheduling orders absent a showing of

good cause is itself intended to directly serve the interest of resource conservation by allowing for

the resolution of untimely or otherwise non-meritorious claims prior to trial and not at the eleventh

hour.

Defendants’ current counsel substituted into this case on December 12, 2006. (Doc. 79.)

Almost nine months later, Defendants filed a pretrial statement indicating the existence of two issues

they wished to address via a dispositive motion. (Doc. 89.) For the reasons set forth above, the

Court does not find good cause to modify the scheduling because the reassignment of an action to

a new attorney does not constitute good cause. However, the Court notes these additional facts

because the nine month lapse between the reassignment of this case and the request at hand do not

support a finding of due diligence by Defendants’ current counsel, despite counsel’s argument to the

contrary. Rather, the time lapse suggests than in preparing this matter for trial, counsel discovered

these possible defenses and desired to raise them. The requisite showing needed to modify a

Case 1:03-cv-05422-LJO -SMS Document 94 Filed 10/17/07 Page 3 of 4
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

4

scheduling order simply does not contemplate approval of such a course of action.

III. Order

The Court finds that Defendants have not shown good cause to modify the scheduling order

to file a late pretrial dispositive motion, and their motion is HEREBY DENIED, with prejudice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 17, 2007 /s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill 

b9ed48 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:03-cv-05422-LJO -SMS Document 94 Filed 10/17/07 Page 4 of 4