Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_11-cv-00099/USCOURTS-caed-1_11-cv-00099-7/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
F. Carreon
Defendant
R. Gomez
Defendant
R. Hall
Defendant
D. James
Defendant
M. Jones
Defendant
J. Mendez
Defendant
Deshawn Mitchell
Plaintiff
L. Zinani
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

DESHAWN MITCHELL, 

 Plaintiff,

 vs.

SERGEANT M. JONES, et al.,

 Defendants.

1:11-cv-00099-LJO-GSA-PC

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S 

MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM THE 

DISCOVERY/SCHEDULING ORDER

(Doc. 39.)

I. BACKGROUND

Deshawn Mitchell (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with this civil rights 

action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On January 20, 2011, Plaintiff filed the Complaint 

commencing this action. (Doc. 1.) The court screened the Complaint and issued an order on 

January 28, 2014, requiring Plaintiff to either file an amended complaint, or notify the court of 

his willingness to proceed only on the claims found cognizable by the court. (Doc. 11.) On 

February 7, 2014, Plaintiff notified the court of his willingness to proceed only on the 

cognizable claims. (Doc. 13.) The case then proceeded on Plaintiff’s original Complaint, 

against defendant Sergeant M. Jones (“Defendant”) for subjecting Plaintiff to adverse 

conditions of confinement in violation of the Eighth Amendment.1 (Doc. 1.) Defendant filed 

 

1 On March 13, 2014, the court issued an order dismissing all other claims and defendants from 

this action, based on Plaintiff’s failure to state a claim. (Doc. 15.) The order dismissed Plaintiff’s claims for 

improper processing of inmate appeals and for supervisory liability. (Id.) The order also dismissed defendants 

Lieutenant D. James, Property Officer F. Carreon, Correctional Officer J. Mendez, Appeals Coordinator R. 

Gomez, Appeals Coordinator R. Hall, and Appeals Coordinator L. Zinani from this action based on Plaintiff's 

failure to state any claims against them. (Id.)

Case 1:11-cv-00099-LJO-EPG Document 40 Filed 06/18/15 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

an Answer to the Complaint on August 7, 2014. (Doc. 32.) On August 8, 2014, the court 

issued a discovery/scheduling order establishing a deadline of April 8, 2015 for the parties to 

complete discovery, and a deadline of June 18, 2015 for the parties to file pretrial dispositive 

motions. (Doc. 34.)

On March 25, 2015, Defendant Jones filed a notice of related cases, notifying the court 

that this case was related to another case filed by Plaintiff at this court, case number 1:15-cv00467-DLB-PC; Mitchell v. Jones. (Doc. 36.) On April 6, 2015, the court consolidated this 

case with case number 1:15-cv-00467-DLB-PC and ordered Plaintiff to file an amended 

complaint including all of his claims against defendant Jones. (Doc. 37.) Defendant Jones was 

advised in the order that he was not required to file an answer to the amended complaint until 

after the court had screened the amended complaint. (Id. at 5:1-3.) On April 20, 2015, Plaintiff 

filed the First Amended Complaint, which awaits the court’s requisite screening. (Doc. 38.)

On June 16, 2015, defendant Jones filed a request for relief from the court’s 

discovery/scheduling order. (Doc. 39.)

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). 

Defendant Jones argues that good cause exists to grant him relief from the court’s 

discovery/scheduling order, because the First Amended Complaint has superceded it. 

Defendant argues that he has been diligent in this matter, has timely complied with all

///

Case 1:11-cv-00099-LJO-EPG Document 40 Filed 06/18/15 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

deadlines, and is seeking relief only because the First Amended Complaint has not been 

screened.

The court finds good cause to relieve defendant Jones from the deadlines and 

requirements of the court’s discovery/scheduling order of August 8, 2014. Thus, Defendant’s

motion shall be granted.

III. CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Defendant Jones’ request for relief from the court’s discovery/scheduling order 

of August 8, 2014 is GRANTED; and

2. The court shall screen the First Amended Complaint in due course and issue a 

new discovery/scheduling order at a later stage of the proceedings. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 18, 2015 /s/ Gary S. Austin 

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:11-cv-00099-LJO-EPG Document 40 Filed 06/18/15 Page 3 of 3