Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_10-cv-00006/USCOURTS-caed-1_10-cv-00006-15/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

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

JASON LATRELL THOMAS,

Plaintiff,

v.

M. WILBER, et al.,

Defendants.

_____________________________________/

Case No. 1:10-cv-00006-AWI-SKO (PC)

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF‟S MOTION 

FOR SERVICE OF REPLY AS MOOT

(Doc. 94)

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF‟S 

MOTIONS FOR MODIFICATION OF THE 

SCHEDULING ORDER TO CONDUCT 

FURTHER DISCOVERY AND TO FILE 

MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

(Docs. 89 and 90)

ORDER STRIKING UNTIMELY MOTION 

FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

(Doc. 88)

I. Introduction

Plaintiff Jason Latrell Thomas, a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, 

filed this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on January 4, 2010. Following the 

partial denial of Defendants‟ motion for summary judgment, this matter is now scheduled for jury 

trial on May 5, 2015, on Plaintiff‟s remaining three claims for monetary damages arising out of 

the violation of his federal constitutional rights. (Docs. 96, 97.)

On March 17, 2014, Plaintiff filed motions seeking discovery and for leave to file a late 

motion for summary judgment, and he filed a late motion for summary judgment. (Docs. 88-90.)

Case 1:10-cv-00006-SKO Document 99 Filed 04/30/14 Page 1 of 5
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

Defendants filed oppositions on April 7, 2014, and Plaintiff filed a reply on April 24, 2014. Local 

Rule 230(l). (Docs. 91, 92, 95.) 

II. Motion for Service of Reply

Concurrently with his reply, Plaintiff filed a motion requesting service of his reply on 

Defendants given his lack of access to a copy machine and an additional envelope.1 (Doc. 94.) 

Defendants received notice and service of Plaintiff‟s reply via CM/ECF, the Court‟s electronic 

filing system, and Plaintiff is not required to serve them separately. (Doc. 3, First Informational 

Order, ¶4.) Plaintiff‟s motion seeking service is therefore moot as a result of electronic filing and 

it is denied on that ground.

III. Motions to Modify Scheduling Order

A. Legal Standard

“A scheduling order is not a frivolous piece of paper, idly entered. . . .” Johnson v. 

Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 610 (9th Cir. 1992) (internal quotation marks and 

citation omitted). 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 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.

B. Relevant Procedural History

In this case, the deadline for the completion of all discovery was November 19, 2012, and 

the deadline for filing pretrial dispositive motions was May 20, 2013. (Docs. 24, 50, 59.) Plaintiff 

failed to file a timely request seeking an extension of either deadline, as required. (Docs. 24, 50.) 

The following procedural history is relevant to the Court‟s determination that good cause to 

modify the scheduling order is lacking.

 

1 What Plaintiff refers to as Defendants‟ “motion” in his reply and his motion for service is Defendants‟ opposition to 

Plaintiff‟s motions to modify the scheduling order.

Case 1:10-cv-00006-SKO Document 99 Filed 04/30/14 Page 2 of 5
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

Plaintiff‟s access to his legal property and his ability to litigate this case has been subject to 

periodic interruption due to Plaintiff‟s mental health issues. (Docs. 58, 66, 71, 72.) The Court has 

been mindful of and has accommodated those issues. (Docs. 59, 74, 86.) 

In particular, on February 6, 2013, Plaintiff notified the Court that he was in the prison 

infirmary between November 2012 and December 2012. (Doc. 58.) During that time, Plaintiff‟s 

legal property was placed in storage and he had yet to regain access to it. In an order filed on 

February 15, 2013, the Court extended the pretrial trial dispositive motion deadline from February 

19, 2013, to May 20, 2013; and the Court addressed Plaintiff‟s status and requested that 

Defendants‟ counsel to contact prison officials and notify Plaintiff of his property status. (Doc. 

59.) On March 1, 2013, Plaintiff filed another request regarding the return of his property, which 

included notice that two of his property boxes had been returned. (Doc. 60.) The request was 

dated February 26, 2013, and the Court denied it as moot in light of its February 15, 2013, order. 

(Doc. 61.)

On May 20, 2013, Defendants filed their motion for summary judgment, and Plaintiff filed 

a notice of change of address to the California Medical Facility in Vacaville. (Docs. 62-66.) On 

May 31, 2013, Plaintiff filed a motion seeking to stay the proceedings based on his placement in 

the custody of the Department of Mental Health and his lack of access to his legal materials. 

(Doc. 72.) On July 30, 2013, the Court granted Plaintiff‟s motion and it ordered the parties to file 

status reports within forty-five days. (Doc. 74.) On August 1, 2013, Plaintiff filed a fifty-six page 

opposition to Defendants‟ motion for summary judgment, supported by evidence. (Doc. 75.)

On September 13, 2013, Defendants filed a status report in compliance with the Court‟s 

order. (Doc. 78.) The status reported was supported by the declaration of the Department of 

Mental Health psychiatrist who treated Plaintiff between April 10, 2013, and August 1, 2013. (Id., 

Banyas Dec., ¶6.) Dr. Banyas attested that Plaintiff was transferred from the Acute Care Program 

to the Intermediate Care Program on June 12, 2013; he had progressed sufficiently to receive his 

legal materials on July 12, 2013; he was permitted to have the materials in his cell on July 17, 

2013; and he was scheduled for discharge from the Intermediate Care Program on August 12, 

2013. (Banyas Dec., ¶10.)

Case 1:10-cv-00006-SKO Document 99 Filed 04/30/14 Page 3 of 5
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

On September 20, 2013, Plaintiff filed a notice of change of address to California State 

Prison-Sacramento, and on October 4, 2013, Plaintiff filed a surreply. (Docs. 81, 82.) Defendants 

filed a motion to strike Plaintiff‟s surreply on October 10, 2013. (Doc. 83.) On October 28, 2013, 

Plaintiff filed a motion seeking leave to submit additional evidence, and on December 16, 2013, 

Plaintiff filed an opposition to Defendants‟ motion to strike his surreply. (Docs. 84, 85.) 

On March 11, 2014, the Court, in light of the mental health issues and property access 

issues suffered by Plaintiff, denied Defendants‟ motion to strike the surreply and granted 

Plaintiff‟s motion for leave to submit additional evidence; and on March 12, 2014, the Court 

issued its findings and recommendations addressing Defendants‟ motion for summary judgment. 

(Docs. 86, 87.) The parties did not file objections, and the findings and recommendations were 

adopted in full by the district judge on April 29, 2014. (Doc. 96.)

C. Discussion

Turning to Plaintiff‟s pending motions for further discovery and for leave to file a late 

motion for summary judgment, it bears reiteration that the Court was aware of and accommodated

to the extent appropriate Plaintiff‟s problems accessing his legal material due to his mental health 

treatment. (Docs. 74, 86.) Critically, Plaintiff filed a coherent, complete opposition to 

Defendants‟ motion for summary judgment on August 1, 2013, at which time he had access to his 

legal material in his cell. (Doc. 75; Doc. 78, Banyas Dec., ¶¶6-10.) Plaintiff subsequently filed a 

surreply; he filed a motion for leave to submit supplemental evidence, accompanied by evidence; 

and he filed an opposition to the motion to strike his surreply. (Docs. 82, 84, 85.) In none of 

those filings did Plaintiff state he had a need for further discovery or for additional time to file his 

own motion for summary judgment. Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4), 56(d).

Plaintiff‟s pending requests for those forms of relief were filed sixteen months after the 

discovery deadline and ten months after the pretrial dispositive motion deadline; and they were 

filed more than seven months after Plaintiff filed his opposition to the motion for summary 

judgment, and almost five months after Plaintiff sought leave to submit supplemental evidence in 

support of his opposition. In short, although Plaintiff dealt with interruptions to access to his 

property due to his mental health treatment, those interruptions were addressed, and no legitimate 

Case 1:10-cv-00006-SKO Document 99 Filed 04/30/14 Page 4 of 5
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

5

explanation justifying the late requests for modification of the scheduling order has been 

presented. (Docs. 74, 86.) To the contrary, the record demonstrates that Plaintiff could have but 

did not seek either form of relief at a much earlier juncture in the proceedings. (Docs. 75, 82, 84, 

85.)

Accordingly, the Court finds that Plaintiff has not demonstrated good cause to modify the 

scheduling order to permit him further discovery or to permit him to file a late motion for 

summary judgment, and his motions are denied.

2

 Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4). 

IV. Order

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

1. Plaintiff‟s motion for service of his reply on Defendants, filed on April 24, 2014, is 

DENIED as moot; 

2. Plaintiff‟s motions to modify the scheduling order to permit further discovery and 

to permit him to file a motion for summary judgment, filed on March 17, 2014, are DENIED 

(docs. 89, 90); and

3. Plaintiff‟s motion for summary judgment, filed on March 17, 2014, is STRICKEN 

from the record as untimely (doc. 88).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 30, 2014 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

 

2 Given Plaintiff‟s failure to meet his burden as the party seeking relief, the arguments in Defendants‟ oppositions are 

not addressed.

Case 1:10-cv-00006-SKO Document 99 Filed 04/30/14 Page 5 of 5