Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_11-cv-02145/USCOURTS-caed-1_11-cv-02145-15/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

JESSE J. MONTIEL,

Plaintiff,

vs.

YATES, et al.,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

1:11cv02145 LJO DLB PC

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ 

MOTION TO MODIFY DISCOVERY AND 

SCHEDULING ORDER

(Document 68) 

Plaintiff Jesse J. Montiel, a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed 

this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on December 28, 2011. This action is 

proceeding against Defendants Das and Green violation of the Eighth Amendment. 

On December 2, 2014, the Court granted Defendants’ first motion to extend the discovery 

and dispositive motion. The deadlines were extended by forty-five days, to February 2, 2015, 

and April 2, 2015.

On January 21, 2015, Defendants filed a second motion to extend the discovery deadline 

and dispositive motion deadline. Defendants request an extension of thirty days. The motion is 

suitable for decision without an opposition pursuant to Local Rule 230(l).

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 

Case 1:11-cv-02145-LJO-DLB Document 69 Filed 01/22/15 Page 1 of 2
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

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. 

Here, Defendants’ counsel encountered an unexpected family medical emergency and 

was in Southern California for eleven days in December. Fitzsimmons Decl. ¶ 3. As a result, 

Counsel was forced to request an extension in this case, as well as others. Counsel needs 

additional time to file a motion to compel, take Plaintiff’s deposition, and complete their motion 

for summary judgment. Fitzsimmons Decl. ¶ 9.

The Court finds that good cause exists to modify the Discovery and Scheduling Order

and Defendants’ motion is GRANTED. The new dates are as follows:

Discovery Deadline: March 4, 2015

Dispositive Motion Deadline: May 4, 2015

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 22, 2015 /s/ Dennis L. Beck 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:11-cv-02145-LJO-DLB Document 69 Filed 01/22/15 Page 2 of 2