Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_22-cv-00950/USCOURTS-caed-1_22-cv-00950-7/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

ANDRES MASQUEDA SERRANO,

Plaintiff,

v.

ROBERT RUDAS, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No.: 1:22-cv-00950-KES-CDB

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S 

MOTION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE 

RELIEF

(Doc. 36) 

Plaintiff Andres Masqueda Serrano is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil 

rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action proceeds against Defendant Rudas for 

violations of Plaintiff’s constitutional rights. 

I. INTRODUCTION

On July 10, 2024, the Court issued is Discovery and Scheduling Order. (Doc. 29.) 

On November 8, 2024, Defendant filed a motion for administrative relief, seeking an 

extension of the deadline for the filing of a motion for summary judgment for a failure to exhaust 

administrative remedies. (Doc. 36.)

II. DISCUSSION

Defendant’s Motion for Administrative Relief

Defendant seeks an extension of the deadline for the filing of a motion for summary 

judgment based upon exhaustion from November 10, 2024, to December 2, 2024. (Doc. 36 at 2.) 

Case 1:22-cv-00950-KES-CDB Document 38 Filed 11/13/24 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

Defense counsel declares she has worked diligently to investigate Plaintiff’s claims and to 

conduct discovery. (Id. at 3, ¶ 3.) She states Plaintiff’s August 26, 2024, response to Defendant’s 

written discovery was deficient. (Id.) Defense counsel met and conferred with Plaintiff on 

September 16, 2024, and received correspondence from Plaintiff on November 8, 2024, but 

Plaintiff did not amend his responses to clarify his claims. (Id., ¶¶ 4-5.)1 Defense counsel asserts 

Plaintiff’s only grievance concerning Defendant complains of a failure to prescribe morphine 

whereas the allegations in Plaintiff’s complaint “seem to indicate that he is making a general 

claim against the parties for deficient medical care for his knee condition.” (Id., ¶ 6.) Counsel 

declares that although she had hoped to receive clarifying responses to better enable her to

prepare an exhaustion motion, she “will still be able to prepare an exhaustion motion by the 

requested deadline of December 2, 2024, if the Court grants the request.” (Id., ¶ 7.) Counsel 

declares her workload in the three months prior has hindered her ability to make progress on an 

exhaustion motion and provides specifics concerning her other obligations. (Id., ¶ 8.) She states 

this is Defendant’s first request for an extension of the relevant deadline, and that it is not made 

for any purpose of harassment, undue delay, or for any improper reason. (Id., ¶ 9.) 

The Court finds a response by Plaintiff to be unnecessary. 

Applicable Legal Standards and Analysis

Pursuant to Rule 16(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a scheduling order “may 

be modified only for good cause and with the judge's consent.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4). This 

good cause standard “primarily considers the diligence of the party seeking the amendment.” 

Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 609 (9th Cir. 1992). The court may modify 

the scheduling order “if it cannot reasonably be met despite the diligence of the party seeking the 

extension.” Id. If the party was not diligent, the inquiry should end. Id.

Here, Defendant has established good cause for an extension of the deadline for the filing 

of a motion for summary judgment based upon a failure to exhaust administrative remedies. The 

1 Defense counsel states she has attached Exhibits A and B to her declaration, however, the Court notes neither 

exhibit was provided with the motion. On November 12, 2024, Defendants filed a Notice of Errata, providing the 

exhibits omitted in the original motion. (See Doc. 37.) 

Case 1:22-cv-00950-KES-CDB Document 38 Filed 11/13/24 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

deadline will be extended as requested. 

III. CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Accordingly, and for good cause shown, the Court ORDERS that:

1. Defendant’s motion for administrative relief (Doc. 36) is GRANTED; and

2. The Discovery and Scheduling Order is MODIFIED to extend the deadline for filing 

a motion for summary judgment based upon a failure to exhaust administrative 

remedies from November 10, 2024, to December 2, 2024. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 13, 2024 ___________________ _

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:22-cv-00950-KES-CDB Document 38 Filed 11/13/24 Page 3 of 3