Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-00578/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-00578-16/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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CHARLES CHATMAN,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-06-0578 MCE EFB P

vs.

R. JOHNSON, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

Plaintiff is a prisoner without counsel suing for alleged civil rights violations. See 42

U.S.C. § 1983. Pending before the court is defendant Rohlfing’s motion to modify the schedule. 

Defendant Rohlfing asserts that because his motion to dismiss has not yet been resolved,

he cannot complete discovery in time to file a dispositive motion. A schedule may be modified

upon a showing of good cause. Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b). Good cause exists when the moving party

demonstrates he or she cannot meet the deadline despite exercising due diligence. Johnson v.

Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 609 (9th Cir. 1992). Defendants Runnels, Felker,

Roche and Rohlfing have moved to dismiss this action. On November 27, 2007, the court

granted their requests for a protective order staying discovery, and ordered that discovery be

stayed until the district judge rules on their motions. If the motion is denied, the parties will

need time to complete discovery before filing dispositive motions, which must be filed no later

Case 2:06-cv-00578-MCE -EFB Document 77 Filed 12/03/07 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

2

than February 1, 2008. The court finds that defendants Runnels, Felker, Roche and Rohlfing

cannot, even if they exercise due diligence, file dispositive motions by this date. 

Accordingly, it hereby is ORDERED that the October 9, 2007, motion is granted and the

date by which dispositive motions must be filed is vacated. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b). Even

though only Rohlfing moved to modify the schedule, the court finds that in the interest of

judicial efficiency it also applies to Runnels, Felker and Roche.

Dated: December 3, 2007.

Case 2:06-cv-00578-MCE -EFB Document 77 Filed 12/03/07 Page 2 of 2