Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_10-cv-02348/USCOURTS-caed-1_10-cv-02348-18/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

GARRISON S. JOHNSON,

 Plaintiff,

 v.

CATE, et al., 

 Defendants.

Case No. 1:10-cv-02348-LJO-MJS (PC)

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S 

REQUEST TO EXTEND TIME

(ECF No. 73)

AMENDED:

 Discovery Cut-Off Date: November 10, 

2014

 Dispositive Motion Deadline: January 

20, 2015

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights action filed pursuant 

to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The action proceeds on an equal protection claim against Defendant 

Doran, Inmate Assignment Lieutenant at Kern Valley State Prison (“KVSP”).

Before the Court is Defendant’s motion to extend the current September 9, 2014 

discovery cut-off date and the current September 16, 2014 deadline to respond to Plaintiff’s 

June 16, 2014 summary judgment motion. 

The Court has wide discretion to extend time, Jenkins v. Commonwealth Land title 

Ins. Co., 95 F.3d 791, 795 (9th Cir. 1996), provided a party must demonstrate some 

justification for the issuance of the enlargement order. Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b)(1); Ginett v. 

Federal Express Corp., 166 F.3d 1213 at 5* (6th Cir. 1998).

Case 1:10-cv-02348-LJO-MJS Document 77 Filed 08/29/14 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

27

28

2

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(b)(4) allows the Court to modify its scheduling 

order for good cause. The “good cause” standard focuses primarily on the diligence of the 

party seeking the amendment. Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 609 

(9th Cir. 1992). “[C]arelessness is not compatible with a finding of diligence and offers no 

reason for a grant of relief.” Id. “Although the existence or degree of prejudice to the party 

opposing the modification might supply additional reasons to deny a motion, the focus of 

the inquiry is upon the moving party's reasons for seeking modification.” Id.

Here, Defendant has demonstrated good cause to extend the time to complete 

discovery and file opposition to Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment. The Court also 

finds good cause to extend the current November 20, 2014 dispositive motion deadline. 

Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant’s motion to extend time (ECF 

No. 73) is GRANTED such that:

1. The Discovery and Scheduling Order (ECF No. 48) is modified to provide a

discovery cut-off date of November 10, 2014 and a dispositive motion deadline 

of January 20, 2015, and 

2. The deadline for Defendant to oppose Plaintiff’s June 16, 2014 summary 

judgment motion (ECF No. 64) is extended to and including December 2, 

2014. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 29, 2014 /s/Michael J. Seng 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

. 

Case 1:10-cv-02348-LJO-MJS Document 77 Filed 08/29/14 Page 2 of 2