Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_22-cv-00457/USCOURTS-caed-1_22-cv-00457-9/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CHRISTOPHER BRANDON DAVIS,

Plaintiff,

v.

M. PORTILLO, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No.: 1:22-cv-00457-KES-CDB (PC)

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S 

REQUESTS TO MODIFY THE 

DISCOVERY AND SCHEDULING ORDER 

(Docs. 45, 47) 

Plaintiff Christopher Brandon Davis is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this 

civil rights action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

I. RELEVANT BACKGROUND

The Court issued its Discovery and Scheduling Order on December 22, 2023. (Doc. 38.) 

On February 22, 2024, the Court issued its Order Granting Plaintiff’s Request to Extend 

Discovery and Scheduling Order Deadlines. (Doc. 40.) 

On February 5, 2024, Plaintiff filed a document titled “Extension to Filing Deadlines 

Request.” (Doc. 45.) 

On September 18, 2024, Plaintiff filed a document titled “Motion to Compel Discovery 

Pitches Motion.”1(Doc. 46.) The following day, Plaintiff filed a document titled “Request for 

Extension to Filing Deadlines, Second Request.” (Doc. 47)

1 The motion filed September 18, 2024, will be resolved separately and in due course. 

Case 1:22-cv-00457-KES-CDB Document 48 Filed 09/20/24 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

II. DISCUSSION

District courts have broad discretion to manage discovery and to control the course of 

litigation under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16. Hunt v. Cnty. of Orange, 672 F.3d 606, 616 

(9th Cir. 2012). A scheduling order may be modified only upon a showing of good cause and by 

leave of Court. Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b)(1)(A), 16(b)(4); see, e.g., Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, 

Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 609 (9th Cir. 1992). In considering whether a party moving for a schedule 

modification has shown good cause, the Court primarily focuses on the diligence of the party 

seeking the modification. Johnson, 975 F.2d at 609 (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 16 advisory 

committee’s notes of 1983 amendment). When an act must be done within a specified time, the 

court may, for good cause, extend the time with or without motion or notice if the court acts, or if 

a request is made, before the original time expires. Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b)(1)(A).

Briefly stated, Plaintiff’s timely requests to extend the deadlines concerning the 

completion of discovery and for the filing of dispositive motions by 60 days establish good cause 

for modification of the Discovery and Scheduling Order. 

III. CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s requests to extend certain discovery deadlines (Docs. 45, 47) are 

GRANTED;

2. The Discovery and Scheduling Order is MODIFIED as follows:

a. The deadline to complete discovery is extended from September 23, 2024, to 

November 22, 2024; and

b. The deadline to file dispositive motions is extended from December 2, 2024, to 

January 31, 2025.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 20, 2024 ___________________ _

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:22-cv-00457-KES-CDB Document 48 Filed 09/20/24 Page 2 of 2