Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00600/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00600-15/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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LARRY W. BURY,

Plaintiff,

v.

AMY BRADISH, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

CASE NO. 1:05-cv-00600-LJO-GSA PC

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATIONS, DENYING

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR

RECONSIDERATION, AND GRANTING

DEFENDANT RASCOE’S MOTION FOR

SUMMARY JUDGMENT

(Docs. 46, 54, and 57)

ORDER REFERRING MATTER BACK TO

MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Plaintiff Larry W. Bury (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma

pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United

States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 72-302.

On May 21, 2008, the Magistrate Judge filed a Findings and Recommendations

recommending that Defendant Rascoe’s motion for summary judgement be granted, and an Order

addressing Plaintiff’s lodged first amended complaint. The parties were granted thirty days within

which to file objections to the Findings and Recommendations. On July 21, 2008, Plaintiff an

Objection to the Order, which the Court shall treat as a motion for reconsideration. Local Rule 78-

230(k). After obtaining an extension of time, Plaintiff filed an Objection to the Findings and

Recommendations on August 6, 2008. 

///

///

Case 1:05-cv-00600-LJO -GSA Document 60 Filed 09/10/08 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 Magistrate Judge’s Order from which Plaintiff seeks relief stated:

On November 26, 2007, after Defendant Rascoe filed a motion for summary

judgment, Plaintiff submitted an amended complaint, which was lodged but not filed.

It appears that the lodged amended complaint was lost or discarded through some

administrative error because the Court does not have the original in its possession.

However, a copy of that proposed amended complaint is attached as Exhibit A to

Plaintiff’s opposition to Defendant’s motion for summary judgment. (Doc. 50.)

Pursuant to the Court’s scheduling order, the deadline for amending the pleadings

was June 29, 2007, and any extension of a deadline set in the scheduling order must

be filed prior to that deadline. (Doc. 43.) Assuming a timely request for an extension

is filed, modification of the pretrial scheduling order requires a showing of good

cause. Fed.R. Civ. P. 16(b). “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, Plaintiff did not at any time file a request for an extension of the

amended pleadings deadline, and did not file any document setting forth good cause

to modify the scheduling order and allow him to file an amended complaint. Indeed,

Plaintiff’s motion for an extension of time to file his opposition to the summary

judgment motion demonstrates that the amended complaint was submitted in an

effort to cure the deficiencies in his claim as raised by Defendant in her motion.

(Doc. 48, pg. 2.) A desire to defeat the opposing party’s arguments at summary

judgment through amendment of the pleadings does not support modification of a

scheduling order.

Because the deadline passed approximately five months before Plaintiff attempted

to file an amended complaint and because Plaintiff made no showing of good cause

to modify the scheduling order, timely or otherwise, Plaintiff’s attempt to file an

amended complaint is rejected. By this order, Plaintiff’s first amended complaint,

lodged on November 26, 2007, is HEREBY DEEMED ADDRESSED.

(Doc. 53.)

Plaintiff submits to the Court as Exhibit A to his motion for reconsideration an “Application

for Relief from Default to Amend Complaint by Plaintiff.” Plaintiff contends that it appears his

application was also lost or misplaced, and that justice requires he be permitted to amend. In the

application, Plaintiff references an order filed on November 16, 2006, in which the undersigned

denied his motion for default judgment. The denial of Plaintiff’s motion for default judgment is

irrelevant to this issue of Plaintiff’s motion to amend.

Plaintiff also states that on or around July 10, 2007, he met a new inmate paralegal who

informed him that the issue of misappropriation of Plaintiff’s medications did not state a claim.

Case 1:05-cv-00600-LJO -GSA Document 60 Filed 09/10/08 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 Default was entered against Defendant Bradish and Plaintiff filed his second motion for the entry of 1

default judgment on July 16, 2008.

3

Plaintiff asserts that he filed an incomplete complaint based on poor advice from a previous jailhouse

lawyer.

This Court already found that Plaintiff’s complaint stated a claim. Regardless, the deadline

for amending the pleadings was June 29, 2007. Plaintiff did not file a timely motion seeking an

extension of the deadline, and Plaintiff’s application sets forth no grounds either excusing the failure

to file a timely motion or making a showing of due diligence. Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b); Zivkovic v.

Southern California Edison Co., 302 F.3d 1080, 1087 (9th Cir. 2002). Accordingly, Plaintiff’s

motion for reconsideration is denied, and the scheduling will not be modified to allow Plaintiff to

amend. 

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this Court has conducted a

de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the Court finds the Findings

and Recommendations to be supported by the record and by proper analysis.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration of the Magistrate Judge’s order addressing

Plaintiff’s lodged first amended complaint, filed July 21, 2008, is DENIED, with

prejudice;

2. The Findings and Recommendations, filed May 21, 2008, is adopted in full;

3. Defendant Rascoe’s motion for summary judgment, filed October 29, 2007, is

GRANTED; and

4. This matter is referred back to the Magistrate Judge for further proceedings.1

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 9, 2008 /s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill 

b9ed48 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-00600-LJO -GSA Document 60 Filed 09/10/08 Page 3 of 3