Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_12-cv-01618/USCOURTS-azd-2_12-cv-01618-0/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

Erick Somoza-Vega, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

CO II Larry Brown, et al.,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-12-1618-PHX-SRB (LOA)

ORDER

This matter arises on another Stipulation to extend the case management’s deadlines

which the Court deems to be a joint motion to extend the Rule 16 case management

deadlines. (Doc. 28) On July 3, 2013, the Court reluctantly extended most of the case

management deadlines, in which “counsel [were] forewarned there will not be any further

extensions of the case management deadlines in this case. These deadlines are real, firm,

and, consistent with the Civil Justice Reform Act of 1990, 28 U.S.C. § 471 et seq., will not

be altered. Thus, counsel must plan their litigation activities accordingly. See Hostnut.Com,

Inc.v. Go Daddy Software, Inc., 2006 WL 2573201, at *1 (D. Ariz. Sept. 6, 2006).” (Doc. 25

at 3) The motion fails to explain why another modification is necessary, and, more

importantly, why the recently-modified pretrial schedule “[c]annot reasonably be met despite

diligence of the party seeking the extension.” Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975

F.2d 604, 608 (9th Cir. 1992). Clearly, one or both counsel have failed to heed the Ninth

Circuit’s directive that the deadlines of “Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16 [are] to be taken

seriously.” Janicki Logging Co. v. Mateer, 42 F.3d 561, 566 (9th Cir. 1994) 

Case 2:12-cv-01618-SRB Document 29 Filed 08/09/13 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 -

The Court will not repeat here the background and case law already detailed in its July

3, 2013 Order, except to note the motion fails to establish the requisite good cause for

extending the current Rule 16 deadlines. The case management deadlines have been twice

modified. (Docs. 15, 25) There will not be another.

Having failed to demonstrate good cause,

IT IS ORDERED that the parties’ stipulated motion to extend the Rule 16 discovery

and dispositive motion deadlines, doc. 28, is DENIED. Plaintiff must prosecute his case or

this action may be dismissed for lack of prosecution pursuant to Rule 41(b), Fed.R.Civ.P.

 Dated this 9th day of August, 2013.

Case 2:12-cv-01618-SRB Document 29 Filed 08/09/13 Page 2 of 2