Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-00388/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-00388-9/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

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

KEITH BULKIN,

Plaintiff,

vs.

V. OCHOA, et al.,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 1:13-cv-00388 DAD DLB PC

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO 

MODIFY SCHEDULING ORDER

[ECF No. 49]

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S 

MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME 

TO FILE OPPOSITION TO MOTION 

FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

[ECF No. 49]

Plaintiff Keith Bulkin is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this 

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

On April 22, 2015, the Court issued a discovery and scheduling order which set the 

deadline for conducting discovery to September 8, 2015, and the dispositive motion deadline to 

November 5, 2015. On August 28, 2015, the Court found good cause to grant Defendants’ 

motion to modify the scheduling order and set the discovery cut-off for December 8, 2015, and 

the dispositive motion deadline for February 5, 2016. Discovery closed on December 8, 2015. 

On February 1, 2016, the Court found good cause to grant Defendants’ request to extend the 

dispositive motion deadline to May 6, 2016. On April 21, 2016, Defendants filed a motion for 

summary judgment. 

Case 1:13-cv-00388-DAD-EPG Document 52 Filed 06/08/16 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

On May 9, 2016, Plaintiff filed the instant motion to modify the scheduling order. 

Plaintiff complains of various unspecified lockdowns as well as a general lack of legal training. 

He further claims he was separated from his personal property for an unidentified period of time. 

He requests an extension of time to conduct additional discovery and to file an opposition to 

Defendants’ motion for summary judgment.

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. 

The Court does not find good cause to extend the discovery cut-off deadline. Discovery 

closed six months ago and Plaintiff only now comes with his request for modification in order to 

conduct additional discovery. Lack of legal training is not a unique circumstance since almost 

all prisoners are untrained in the law. The unspecified lockdowns and period of time Plaintiff 

was separated from his personal property do not excuse the six month gap between the close of 

discovery and Plaintiff’s instant request for modification. Surely, Plaintiff could have alerted the 

Court to his need for an extension before six months had passed. Thus, the Court finds Plaintiff 

failed to act diligently. 

Plaintiff also requests an extension of time to file an opposition to Defendants’ motion for 

summary judgment. On May 18, 2016, the Court granted Plaintiff’s first request for extension of 

time to file opposition. The Court finds good cause to grant a second extension.

///

///

///

///

Case 1:13-cv-00388-DAD-EPG Document 52 Filed 06/08/16 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

ORDER

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:

1) Plaintiff’s request to modify the Discovery and Scheduling Order is DENIED;

2) Plaintiff’s second request for extension of time to file an opposition is GRANTED; 

and

3) Plaintiff is GRANTED thirty days from the date of service of this order to file his 

opposition.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 8, 2016 /s/ Dennis L. Beck 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:13-cv-00388-DAD-EPG Document 52 Filed 06/08/16 Page 3 of 3