Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-01554/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-01554-8/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

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

CHARLES T. DAVIS,

Plaintiff,

vs.

A. MOLINA, et al.,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 1:14-cv-01554 LJO DLB PC

ORDER DENYING REQUEST TO 

MODIFY SCHEDULING ORDER

[ECF No. 41]

Plaintiff Charles T. Davis (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil 

action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff filed this action in the Fresno County Superior 

Court on June 13, 2013. On October 2, 2014, the case was removed to this Court. This case is 

proceeding against Defendant Molina on a claim of retaliation in violation of the First 

Amendment. 

On December 22, 2015, the Court issued a discovery and scheduling order in this matter. 

The discovery cut-off was set for May 23, 2016, and the dispositive motion deadline was set for 

July 21, 2016. On February 11, 2016, Defendant Hosman filed a motion for summary judgment 

based on failure to exhaust. Plaintiff filed an opposition on March 2, 2016, and Defendant filed a 

reply on March 8, 2016. On March 11, 2016, the Court issued a Findings and Recommendation 

Case 1:14-cv-01554-LJO-BAM Document 46 Filed 06/07/16 Page 1 of 3
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

which recommended the motion for summary judgment be granted. The District Court adopted 

the Findings and Recommendation on April 15, 2016, and Defendant Hosman and the claim 

against him were dismissed. 

On May 2, 2016, Plaintiff filed a motion to modify the scheduling order. Defendant did 

not file a response to the motion. Plaintiff complains that Defendant’s counsel has engaged in 

dilatory discovery tactics intentionally designed to delay, frustrate, and hinder the discovery 

process. Based on the attachments to his motion, it appears that Plaintiff is vexed because 

Defendant’s counsel refused to answer Plaintiff’s first request for production of documents and 

things because Plaintiff did not direct the request to either Defendant. However, Defendant’s 

position is not wrong insofar as Plaintiff’s request was not directed to a particular party. (See 

Pl.’s Mot., Attach. 1.) Plaintiff corrected the error by re-sending his request and specifying the 

propounding party and responding party. (See Pl.’s Mot., Attach. 3.) Plaintiff states a 

modification is now necessary because Counsel’s litigation tactics will push the discovery 

proceeding past the deadline.

Modification of the pretrial scheduling order requires a showing of good cause. 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 v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 

607 (9th Cir. 1992)). “If the party seeking the modification ‘was not diligent, the inquiry should 

end’ and the motion to modify should not be granted.” Id. 

In this case, the Court does not find good cause to modify the scheduling order. First, the 

Court does not find bad faith in Defendant Molina’s or Hosman’s refusal to respond to a 

discovery request that was not specifically directed to them. In addition, Defendant Hosman was 

dismissed from the case on April 15, 2016. Plaintiff’s rationale for extending the discovery 

deadline concerns his discovery requests directed to Defendant Hosman. (See Pl.’s Mot., 

Case 1:14-cv-01554-LJO-BAM Document 46 Filed 06/07/16 Page 2 of 3
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

Attachs. 1-3.) Since Defendant Hosman is no longer party to this suit, Plaintiff’s argument is 

moot.

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s request to modify the Discovery and Scheduling Order is 

DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 7, 2016 /s/ Dennis L. Beck 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:14-cv-01554-LJO-BAM Document 46 Filed 06/07/16 Page 3 of 3