Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_12-cv-01435/USCOURTS-azd-2_12-cv-01435-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 555
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Prison Condition
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

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Alan Troy Nimer, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Charles L. Ryan, et al.,

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-12-1435-PHX-ROS (LOA)

ORDER

 This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motion for Extension of Time for

Deadlines Set by the Court. (Doc. 60) Defendants have filed a Response and Plaintiff has filed

a Reply. (Docs. 64, 67) 

Plaintiff initiated this action by filing a Civil Rights Complaint by a Prisoner on July

2, 2012. (Doc. 1) Upon screening the Complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a), the assigned

District Judge dismissed it for failure to state a claim but granted Plaintiff leave to file an

amended complaint. (Doc. 14 at 11-12) On February 8, 2013, Plaintiff filed a First Amended

Complaint. (Doc. 23) Upon screening the First Amended Complaint, the District Judge directed

Defendants Brown, Gabowski, Taylor and Hernandez to answer Counts One and Two, but

dismissed Count Three, and several other defendants, without prejudice. (Doc. 24 at 16)

In the instant Motion, Plaintiff requests a ninety-day extension of the deadlines set by

the Court in the scheduling and discovery order, doc. 32. Specifically, Plaintiff seeks an

extension of the deadline to request additional discovery and the deadline to bring discovery

disputes to the Court’s attention. No other deadlines are addressed in the Motion.

Case 2:12-cv-01435-ROS-BSB Document 68 Filed 04/14/14 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 -

The basis for Plaintiff’s requested extensions appears to be that he did not receive his

medical records until later than anticipated because he was transferred to a different housing

unit. He claims his review of the medical records reveals a need for additional discovery

requests, though he fails to explain what additional discovery he needs. Plaintiff also fails to

explain why he needs an extension of the deadline for presenting discovery disputes to the

Court.

In the Response, Defendants acknowledge there was a delay in Plaintiff’s receipt of

his medical records as a result of his transfer to another prison housing unit. Defendants,

therefore, do not oppose a sixty-day extension of the deadline to bring discovery disputes to the

Court’s attention. They oppose any other extensions, arguing Plaintiff has offered no good cause

for his delay in requesting the extensions.

In the Reply, in addition to the two extensions requested in the Motion, Plaintiff seeks

an extension of the deadline to amend the complaint. Again, however, the only reason provided

for the requested extensions is the delay in receiving medical records. He fails to explain why

the delayed receipt of his medical records warrants additional time for discovery requests and

an amended complaint.

A scheduling order “may be modified only for good cause and with the judge’s

consent.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 16(b)(4). For purposes of this rule, “good cause” means the scheduling

deadlines cannot be met despite the party’s diligence. Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc.,

975 F.2d 604, 609 (9th Cir. 1992) (citing 6A Wright, Miller & Kane, Federal Practice and

Procedure § 1522.1 at 231 (2d ed. 1990)). “The pretrial schedule may be modified if it cannot

reasonably be met despite the diligence of the party seeking the extension. If the party seeking

the modification was not diligent, the inquiry should end and the motion to modify should not

be granted.” Zivkovic v. Southern California Edison Co., 302 F.3d 1080, 1087 (9th Cir. 2002)

(citation and internal quotation marks omitted). 

In light of Defendants’ non-opposition to a sixty-day extension of the deadline to

bring discovery disputes to the Court’s attention, the Court will grant such an extension.

However, Plaintiff’s requests to extend the time to seek additional discovery and amend the

Case 2:12-cv-01435-ROS-BSB Document 68 Filed 04/14/14 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 -

complaint will be denied. Plaintiff has not demonstrated good cause to extend the deadlines

previously imposed in the scheduling and discovery order. The only reason he gives for the

requested extensions is the delayed receipt of his medical records. That, in itself, is insufficient

to establish good cause to extend the two other deadlines.

Accordingly, 

IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Extension of Time for Deadlines Set by

the Court, doc. 60, is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. The Motion is granted in that

the deadline to bring discovery disputes to the Court’s attention is extended by sixty days to

May 3, 2014. The other requested extensions are denied.

DATED this 14th day of April, 2014.

 

Case 2:12-cv-01435-ROS-BSB Document 68 Filed 04/14/14 Page 3 of 3