Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-00553/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-00553-10/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Lavell Frierson
Plaintiff
U. Ojeda
Defendant

Document Text:

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

LAVELL FRIERSON,

 Plaintiff,

 vs.

OJEDA,

 Defendant.

1:14-cv-00553-DAD-GSA-PC

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S 

MOTION TO MODIFY SCHEDULING 

ORDER TO EXTEND DISPOSITIVE 

MOTIONS DEADLINE

(ECF No. 44.)

New Dispositive Motions Deadline: 

 December 15, 2016

I. BACKGROUND

Lavell Frierson (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis 

with this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This case proceeds with Plaintiff’s 

initial Complaint, filed on April 18, 2014, against defendant Correctional Officer U. Ojeda

(“Defendant”) on Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment Claim arising out of the placement of a 

cellmate in Plaintiff’s cell. This case is scheduled for a settlement conference on November 10, 

2016 at 1:00 p.m. before Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman at the U. S. District Court in 

Sacramento, California. (ECF No. 34.)

Case 1:14-cv-00553-DAD-GSA Document 52 Filed 10/13/16 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 December 2, 2015, the Court issued a discovery and scheduling order setting out 

case deadlines, including deadlines of August 2, 2016 for completion of discovery and October 

11, 2016 for the filing of dispositive motions. (ECF No. 25.) 

On August 31, 2016, Defendant filed a motion to extend the deadline for filing

dispositive motions. (ECF No. 44.) Plaintiff has not opposed the motion.

II. MOTION TO MODIFY SCHEDULING ORDER

Modification of a scheduling order requires a showing of good cause, Fed. R. Civ. P. 

16(b), and good cause requires a showing of due diligence, Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, 

Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 609 (9th Cir. 1992). To establish good cause, the party seeking the 

modification of a scheduling order must generally show that even with the exercise of due 

diligence, they cannot meet the requirement of the order. Id. The court may also consider the 

prejudice to the party opposing the modification. Id. If the party seeking to amend the 

scheduling order fails to show due diligence the inquiry should end and the court should not 

grant the motion to modify. Zivkovic v. Southern California Edison, Co., 302 F.3d 1080, 1087 

(9th Cir. 2002). 

III. DISCUSSION

Defendant represents that he intends to file a motion for summary judgment in this case. 

Defendant requests an extension of time to file a motion for summary judgment because this 

case is scheduled for a Settlement Conference on November 10, 2016 and could be resolved in 

its entirety at the Settlement Conference rendering any motion for summary judgment moot. 

Defendant argues that rather than expending the time and resources preparing and responding 

to a motion for summary judgment, it would make more sense at this juncture for the parties to 

focus their efforts on resolving the case at the settlement conference. 

The Court finds good cause to extend the dispositive motions deadline until after the 

Settlement Conference. Plaintiff has not opposed Defendant’s motion. Therefore, the 

dispositive motions deadline shall be extended to December 15, 2016 for all parties to this case.

///

///

Case 1:14-cv-00553-DAD-GSA Document 52 Filed 10/13/16 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

IV. CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Defendant’s motion to modify the Court’s scheduling order, filed on August 31, 

2016, is GRANTED; and

2. The dispositive motions deadline is extended from October 11, 2016 to 

December 15, 2016, for all parties to this case.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 13, 2016 /s/ Gary S. Austin 

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:14-cv-00553-DAD-GSA Document 52 Filed 10/13/16 Page 3 of 3