Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_13-cv-00531/USCOURTS-caed-2_13-cv-00531-5/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

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 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

MARY J. CRAGO, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

LEONARD, K #0877, 

Defendant. 

No. 2:13-cv-0531-TLN-EFB PS 

ORDER 

 On September 11, 2013, the court held an initial scheduling conference. Plaintiff 

indicated in her status report that she anticipated filing a motion to amend her complaint to assert 

claims against two additional officers whose identities were currently unknown. Based on that 

representation, the court issued a status (pretrial scheduling) order pursuant to Federal Rule of 

Civil Procedure (“Rule”) 16, see ECF No. 27, that granted plaintiff until October 23, 2013, to file 

a motion to amend. Id. at 2. 

 On September 18, 2013, plaintiff filed her request for leave to amend her complaint to 

add two additional defendants. ECF No. 24. The motion was denied because plaintiff failed to 

submit a proposed amended complaint as required by this court’s local rules. See ECF No. 30; 

E.D. Cal. L. R. 137(c). On October 24, 2013, plaintiff filed a first amended complaint, 

///// 

///// 

Case 2:13-cv-00531-EFB Document 36 Filed 01/09/14 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

which the court construed as a motion for leave to amend the complaint.1 The motion to amend 

was denied because the proposed amended complaint did not contain any factual allegations or 

state a cause of action. ECF No. 33 at 3. However, because it was clear that plaintiff wished to 

amend her complaint to add additional defendants, the court modified the September 20, 2013 

scheduling order to provide that after November 29, 2013, no further joinder of parties or 

amendments will be permitted except with leave of court, good cause having been shown. Id. at 

3-4. 

 On November 26, 2013, plaintiff filed a request for an extension of time to file an 

amended complaint. ECF No. 34. Essentially, plaintiff is asking the court to modify the 

September 20, 2013 status (pretrial scheduling) order to permit plaintiff to file an amended 

complaint after November 29, 2013. Plaintiff explains that she needs trial minutes from a 

different case and that additional time is needed to acquire this discovery from defendant. ECF 

No. 34 at 2.2

 Plaintiff contends that the trial minutes are needed “to show that Officer Leonard 

falsified the police report.” 

 It is not clear from plaintiff’s pleading why trial minutes from another action are needed to 

amend her complaint. Officer Leonard is the only named defendant in this action and plaintiff 

has not shown that the trial minutes she seeks are necessary to amend her complaint to add factual 

allegation against him. To the extent plaintiff is requesting additional time to conduct discovery, 

the request is unnecessary. Pursuant to the court’ scheduling order, discovery need not be 

completed until March 28, 2014. See ECF No. 27. Accordingly, plaintiff is free to continue to 

conduct discovery at this time. 

///// 

///// 

 1

 Also on October 24, 2013, plaintiff filed a motion requesting that the date for amending 

her complaint be extended by one day, ECF No. 31, which was granted, ECF No. 33 at 2 n.1. 

2

 Submitted with her request to amend the scheduling order is defendant’s objections to 

plaintiff’s discovery requests. ECF No. 34 at 4-5. In response to plaintiff’s request for minutes 

from the William McDonald trial, defendant objects on the grounds that such documents are not 

in his possession. Id. 

Case 2:13-cv-00531-EFB Document 36 Filed 01/09/14 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

 Plaintiff has failed to show good cause for modifying the court’s September 20, 2013 

scheduling order. Accordingly, plaintiff’s request for an extension of time, construed as a request 

to modify the scheduling order, ECF No. 34, is denied. This action proceeds on the original 

complaint, ECF No. 1, filed on March 18, 2013. 

Dated: January 9, 2014. 

Case 2:13-cv-00531-EFB Document 36 Filed 01/09/14 Page 3 of 3