Opinion ID: 6316715
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Entry of the Scheduling Order

Text: Roughly two years into the case, the magistrate judge entered a scheduling order. Mr. Sperry challenges the validity of that order, and we reject his challenge. In most civil cases, the court must enter a scheduling order. Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(1). But the District of Kansas has exempted prisoner cases from this requirement. D. Kan. Rules 9.1(k), 16.1(b)(2). So in the District of Kansas, a court need not enter a scheduling order in a prisoner case. 3 Appellate Case: 21-3008 Document: 010110648547 Date Filed: 02/23/2022 Page: 4 Despite this exemption, the district court can enter a scheduling order. See D. Kan. Rule 16.1(b) (stating that prisoner cases are exempt from the requirement for entry of a scheduling order “[u]nless the court orders otherwise in a particular case”). In this case, the magistrate judge applied only some of the requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16. But this too was within the magistrate judge’s discretion, as the District of Kansas allows the district court to impose some or all of the requirements of Rule 16 “if necessary to effectively manage an action.” D. Kan. Rule 9.1(k). As a result, we conclude that the magistrate judge did not err in entering a scheduling order.