Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_22-cv-01211/USCOURTS-caed-2_22-cv-01211-2/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

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MICHAEL AARON WITKIN,

Plaintiff,

v.

M. PITTSLEY,

Defendant.

No. 2:22-cv-1211 WBS CSK P

ORDER

Plaintiff is a former state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis. Defendant’s 

motions for extensions of time are before the court. As discussed below, defendant’s motions are 

granted.

Background

This action proceeds on plaintiff’s claim that defendant M. Pittsley denied plaintiff 

physical exercise in violation of the Eighth Amendment. (ECF No. 1.)

On April 10, 2024, plaintiff filed a motion for summary judgment. (ECF No. 22.) 

On April 12, 2024, defendant filed a motion to revoke plaintiff’s in forma pauperis status 

and to dismiss this action with prejudice based on plaintiff’s false allegation of poverty, which 

defendant contends was made in bad faith, and that the suit is malicious pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1915(e)(2)(A) and (B)(i). (ECF No. 23 at 1 (hereafter “motion to revoke and dismiss”).)

////

Case 2:22-cv-01211-WBS-CSK Document 26 Filed 04/19/24 Page 1 of 4
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

On April 12, 2024, defendant filed a motion for administrative relief for extension of time 

to file a motion for summary judgment. (ECF No. 24.) On April 17, 2024, defendant filed a 

motion for administrative relief for extension of time to respond to plaintiff’s motion for 

summary judgment. (ECF No. 25.) Both motions cite Local Rule 233. 

Local Rule 233

Local Rule 233 provides:

Miscellaneous administrative matters which require a Court order 

may be brought to the Court’s attention through a motion for 

administrative relief. Examples of matters that such motions may 

address include motions to exceed applicable page limitations; 

requests to shorten time on a motion; requests to extend a response 

deadline; requests to alter a briefing schedule; or requests to alter a 

discovery schedule that does not affect dispositive motion filing 

dates, trial dates, or the final pre-trial conference.

Local Rule 233. 

Defendant’s April 12, 2024 Motion

In the first motion for extension, defendant does not seek to alter a briefing schedule or a 

discovery schedule, but rather seeks an extension of time to file a summary judgment motion 

which would require extending the dispositive motion deadline. Because granting such extension 

would require extending the dispositive motion deadline, such request is governed by Rule 16(b) 

of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, not Local Rule 233. 

Governing Standards

“The district court is given broad discretion in supervising the pretrial phase of litigation.” 

Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 607 (9th Cir. 1992) (citation and internal 

quotation marks omitted). Rule 16(b) provides that “[a] schedule may be modified only for good 

cause and with the judge’s consent.” 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, 975 F.2d at 607).

////

////

Case 2:22-cv-01211-WBS-CSK Document 26 Filed 04/19/24 Page 2 of 4
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

Discussion

In support of the motion, defendant’s counsel filed a declaration stating that counsel 

reviewed this case and discussed the underlying facts with her supervisor and concluded that 

defendant has grounds to move to revoke plaintiff’s in forma pauperis status and dismiss this

case. (ECF No. 24 at 3.) Such motion to revoke and dismiss was filed contemporaneously with 

the motion for extension of the pretrial motions deadline, and if the motion to revoke and dismiss

is granted, a motion for summary judgment would not be necessary. 

Under the circumstances, the undersigned finds good cause to extend the pretrial motions 

deadline until after the motion to revoke and dismiss is resolved.

Defendant’s April 17, 2024 Motion

Defendant’s second motion seeks to extend a response deadline and is properly brought 

under Local Rule 233. Defendant moves to extend the deadline to oppose plaintiff’s motion for 

summary judgment until after defendant’s motion to revoke and dismiss is resolved. If the 

motion to revoke and dismiss is granted, defendant would not need to file an opposition to 

plaintiff’s pending motion.

Defendant’s second motion for extension is well-taken. Defendant is relieved of the 

obligation to oppose plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment until after the motion to revoke and 

dismiss is resolved.

Revised Deadlines

If the district court denies defendant’s motion to revoke and dismiss, defendant shall file a 

motion for summary judgment and opposition to plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment (ECF 

No. 22) within sixty days from the date the district court order is filed. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Defendant’s motion to extend the pretrial motions deadline (ECF No. 24) is granted; 

2. The pretrial motions deadline is extended until after the district court resolves 

defendant’s motion to revoke and dismiss (ECF No. 23); in all other respects, the scheduling 

order (ECF No. 19) remains in effect;

////

Case 2:22-cv-01211-WBS-CSK Document 26 Filed 04/19/24 Page 3 of 4
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

3. Defendant’s motion to extend the deadline to file an opposition to plaintiff’s motion for 

summary judgment (ECF No. 25) is granted; and

4. Defendant is granted sixty days from the date of any district court order denying 

defendant’s motion to revoke and dismiss (ECF No. 23) to file a motion for summary judgment 

and to file an opposition to plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 22). 

Dated: April 19, 2024

/1/witk1211.16b

Case 2:22-cv-01211-WBS-CSK Document 26 Filed 04/19/24 Page 4 of 4