Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-01066/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-01066-12/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Kelvin Felton
Plaintiff
S. Harrison
Defendant
J. Lopez
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

KELVIN FELTON,

 Plaintiff,

 vs.

J. LOPEZ, et al.,

 Defendants.

1:12-cv-01066-AWI-GSA-PC

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO

MODIFY SCHEDULING ORDER AS

MOOT

(Doc. 57.)

I. BACKGROUND

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

with this civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This case now proceeds on 

Plaintiff‟s original Complaint, filed on June 29, 2012, against defendants Correctional Officer 

(C/O) J. Lopez and C/O S. Harrison for use of excessive force in violation of the Eighth 

Amendment; and on Plaintiff„s Supplemental Complaint, filed on April 19, 2013, against C/O 

J. Lopez for excessive force in violation of the Eighth Amendment and retaliation in violation 

of the First Amendment. (Docs. 1, 22.) 

On May 2, 2014, defendant Lopez filed a motion to dismiss the Supplemental 

Complaint, which is pending.

1

(Doc. 38.) Also on May 2, 2014, defendant Harrison filed an 

 

1 On January 23, 2015, the court issued findings and recommendations to deny the motion to 

dismiss. (Doc. 58.) The parties were granted thirty days in which to file objections to the findings and 

recommendations. (Id.) To date, no objections have been filed.

Case 1:12-cv-01066-AWI-BAM Document 64 Filed 02/05/15 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

Answer. (Doc. 39.) On May 14, 2014, the Court issued a Scheduling Order establishing 

deadlines of January 14, 2015 for completion of discovery, and March 23, 2015 for the parties 

to file pretrial dispositive motions. (Doc. 40.) On August 14, 2014, defendant Lopez filed a 

motion for summary judgment on Plaintiff‟s claims in the Supplemental Complaint, which is 

pending.

2

 (Doc. 50.) 

On January 9, 2015, defendants Lopez and Harrison (“Defendants”) filed a motion to 

modify the Scheduling Order. (Doc. 57.) On January 26, 2015, Plaintiff filed an opposition to 

Defendants‟ motion. (Doc. 60.) On February 2, 2015, Defendants filed a reply. (Doc. 63.) 

Defendants‟ motion to modify the Scheduling Order is now before the court.

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). A party may obtain relief from the court=s deadline date for discovery by 

demonstrating good cause for allowing further discovery. Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4). 

Defendants request a stay of the discovery deadline pending resolution of defendant 

Lopez‟s motion for summary judgment and motion to dismiss. Defendants assert that 

defendant Lopez has not begun the discovery process, and cannot begin discovery until all of 

the legal issues raised in his motion to dismiss and motion for summary judgment are fully 

adjudicated. Defendants argue that if the current discovery deadline of January 14, 2015 

 

2 On January 28, 2015, the court issued findings and recommendations to grant in part the 

motion to dismiss, with leave to amend. (Doc. 61.) The parties were granted thirty days in which to file 

objections to the findings and recommendations. (Id.) To date, no objections have been filed.

Case 1:12-cv-01066-AWI-BAM Document 64 Filed 02/05/15 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

expires before the court has ruled on defendant Lopez‟s motions, defendant Lopez will not 

have a chance to participate in discovery at all. Defendants request the court to issue a new 

discovery order, if needed, after defendant Lopez‟s motions are resolved.

Discussion

The court finds that Defendants have shown due diligence in litigating this action, and 

in anticipating that the discovery deadline may expire before defendant Lopez‟s motions have 

been resolved, denying defendant Lopez the opportunity to participate in discovery. However, 

given that the discovery deadline of January 14, 2015 has now expired, Defendants‟ request to 

stay discovery is moot, and there is no immediate need to modify the Scheduling Order pending 

the resolution of defendant Lopez‟s motions. Therefore, the court shall deny Defendants‟ 

motion to modify the scheduling order as moot, and if needed, the court shall issue a new 

Scheduling Order after defendant Lopez‟s motions are resolved.

III. CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Defendants‟ motion to modify the court's Scheduling Order is DENIED as moot;

and

2. If needed, the court shall issue a new Scheduling Order after defendant Lopez‟s 

motion for summary judgment and motion to dismiss are resolved.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 5, 2015 /s/ Gary S. Austin 

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:12-cv-01066-AWI-BAM Document 64 Filed 02/05/15 Page 3 of 3