Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_10-cv-02043/USCOURTS-caed-2_10-cv-02043-10/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Brown
Defendant
John Havlin
Defendant
Darrell Williams
Plaintiff

Document Text:

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DARRELL WILLIAMS,

Plaintiff, No. 2:10-cv-2043 JAM DAD P

vs.

JOHN HAVLIN et al.,

Defendant. ORDER

 /

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a civil rights action seeking

relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 

On October 17, 2012, defendant Brown filed a motion for judgment on the

pleadings for failure to state a claim. However, according to the court’s discovery and

scheduling order, the parties were required to file all pretrial motions long ago, specifically on or

before August 5, 2011. Defense counsel has not filed a motion to modify the court’s scheduling

order. See Johnson v. Mammoth Re-creations, 975 F.2d 604, 608 (9th Cir. 1992). Nor has

defense counsel otherwise shown good cause to modify the scheduling order as required. See

Zivkovich v. Southern California Edison Co., 302 F.3d 1080 (9th Cir. 2002) (“If the party

seeking the modification ‘was not diligent, the inquiry should end’ and the motion to modify

/////

1

Case 2:10-cv-02043-JAM-DB Document 60 Filed 07/05/13 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

should not be granted.”). Accordingly, defendant’s motion for judgment on the pleadings will be

stricken as untimely. 

If defense counsel believes that he can establish that the defendant has good cause

to act out of time, no small feat in light of the length of the delay, counsel may file a motion to

modify the scheduling order within thirty days of the date of this order. However, counsel is

advised that at the outset of this case during the screening process the court found that plaintiff’s

complaint appeared to state a cognizable claim under the Eighth Amendment. In this regard, if

defense counsel is planning to file a motion for leave to act out of time, defense counsel should

consider seeking leave to file a motion for summary judgment and not a motion for judgment on

the pleadings for failure to state a claim. If counsel chooses not to file a motion to modify the

scheduling order the court will schedule this matter for the filing of pretrial statements, pretrial

conference, and jury trial. 

Also pending before the court is plaintiff’s motion to schedule this case for trial. 

The court will deny plaintiff’s motion as unnecessary. The court will issue any further

scheduling orders in this matter at the appropriate time without a motion by a party.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Defendant Brown’s motion for judgment on the pleadings (Doc. No. 50) is

stricken as untimely. Within twenty-one days of the date of this order, defense counsel may file a

motion to modify the scheduling order to file a dispositive motion; and

2. Plaintiff’s motion to schedule this matter for trial (Doc. No. 59) is denied as

unnecessary.

DATED: July 3, 2013.

DAD:9

will2043.oot

2

Case 2:10-cv-02043-JAM-DB Document 60 Filed 07/05/13 Page 2 of 2