UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

SOUTHERN DIVISION 

David St. Ann, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

McLean, et al., 

Defendants. 

________________________________/

Case No. 15-11770 

Judith E. Levy 

United States District Judge 

Mag. Judge Anthony P. Patti 

OPINION AND ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR EXTENSION 

OF TIME AND AMENDMENT OF SCHEDULING ORDER [85] 

 On February 27, 2019, attorney Jeahad Kadaf was assigned to 

represent plaintiff David St. Ann in this matter. On June 10, 2019, St. 

Ann filed a motion to remove counsel, which will be heard on August 19, 

2019, at the same time as the final pretrial conference. (ECF Nos. 83, 84.) 

Now, St. Ann seeks an extension of time and amendment of the 

scheduling order, to allow him more time to prepare for trial as a selfrepresented litigant. (ECF No. 85.) 

 Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(b)(4), “[a] schedule may 

be modified only for good cause and with the judge’s consent.” “The 
2 

primary measure of Rule 16’s ‘good cause’ standard is the moving party’s 

diligence in attempting to meet the case management order ’s 

requirements.” Inge v. Rock Fin. Corp., 281 F.3d 613, 625 (6th Cir. 2002) 

(internal quotation marks and citations omitted). Whether the opposing 

party will suffer significant prejudice is also an important 

consideration. See Leary v. Daeschner, 349 F.3d 888, 906–07 (6th Cir. 

2003). Consent to modify a scheduling order is left to the sound discretion 

of the district judge. Id. at 905–06. 

 St. Ann has not demonstrated good cause to modify the scheduling 

order and trial date. This case was originally filed on May 15, 2015. (ECF 

No. 1.) St. Ann proceeded as a self-represented litigant for nearly four 

years until Mr. Kadaf was assigned to the case. St. Ann, when proceeding 

pro se, did not demonstrate difficulty meeting deadlines throughout this 

case. The record also shows that he diligently participated in discovery, 

filed a dispositive motion and response to defendants’ dispositive motion, 

sought out legal guidebooks and materials from Amazon and the law 

library where he is incarcerated, and otherwise has taken diligent steps 

throughout the years to prepare his case for trial. 
3 

 St. Ann’s motion indicates that he seeks to adjourn the trial date 

because he is receiving ongoing treatment to his left ear, and “may have 

to undergo surgery... in the near future,” but neither his motion nor the 

records he has attached indicate that surgery or any other medical 

procedure is scheduled that would interfere with the trial date. 

Accordingly, good cause has not been shown to modify the scheduling 

order. 

 Meanwhile, this case has been pending against defendants since 

2015, and the scheduling order in this case has been modified four times 

already. (ECF. Nos. 40, 74, 79, 84.) Trial is set for September 3, 2019, at 

8:30 a.m. and further delay is not warranted. Accordingly, St. Ann’s 

motion for an amendment to the scheduling order is denied. 

 St. Ann is directed to review the Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16 

and Eastern District of Michigan Local Rules 16.1’s requirements for 

filing the final pretrial order. Also, St. Ann and defendants are directed 

to this Court’s practice guidelines related to the final pretrial conference, 

which are located at: 

http://www.mied.uscourts.gov/index.cfm?pageFunction=chambers&judg

eid=44. 
4 

For the reasons set forth above, the Court DENIES St. Ann’s motion 

for extension of time and amendment of scheduling order. 

 IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: July 16, 2019 s/Judith E. Levy 

 Ann Arbor, Michigan JUDITH E. LEVY 

 United States District Judge 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

The undersigned certifies that the foregoing document was served 

upon counsel of record and any unrepresented parties via the Court’s 

ECF System to their respective email or First Class U.S. mail addresses 

disclosed on the Notice of Electronic Filing on July 16, 2019. 

s/Shawna Burns 

SHAWNA BURNS 

Case Manager