(PC) Rios v. Gipson ( 2020 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 RENO FUENTES RIOS, Case No. 1:14-cv-00520-NONE-BAM (PC) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO MODIFY SCHEDULING 13 v. ORDER 14 GIPSON, et al., (ECF No. 60) 15 Defendants. Dispositive Motion Deadline: July 21, 2020 16 17 Plaintiff Reno Fuentes Rios (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma 18 pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action proceeds on 19 Plaintiff’s first amended complaint against Defendants Gipson, Mayo, Pina, Ortega, and Garcia 20 for improper gang validation in retaliation for filing grievances, in violation of the First 21 Amendment. 22 Pursuant to the Court’s May 13, 2019 Discovery and Scheduling Order, (ECF No. 53), 23 and December 20, 2019 order granting modification of discovery and scheduling order, (ECF No. 24 57), the deadline for filing dispositive motions is currently May 21, 2020. 25 On May 20, 2020, Defendants filed a motion to modify the scheduling order to extend the 26 dispositive motion deadline by sixty days, up to and including July 21, 2020. (ECF No. 60.) 27 Although Plaintiff has not had an opportunity to respond to the motion, the Court finds a response 28 unnecessary and the motion is deemed submitted. Local Rule 230(l). 1 Pursuant to Rule 16(b), a scheduling order “may be modified only for good cause and 2 with the judge’s consent.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4). The “good cause” standard “primarily 3 considers the diligence of the party seeking the amendment.” Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, 4 Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 609 (9th Cir. 1992). The court may modify the scheduling order “if it cannot 5 reasonably be met despite the diligence of the party seeking the extension.” Id. If the party was 6 not diligent, the inquiry should end. Id. 7 Defense counsel states that good cause exists to modify the scheduling order because the 8 Office of the Attorney General for the State of California has asked its employees to refrain from 9 coming into the office to work and to work remotely, due to the ongoing COVID-19 crisis. (ECF 10 No. 60.) In addition, CDCR has informed the Office of the Attorney General that in an ongoing 11 effort to mitigate the severity of the effects of the COVID-19 crisis, they have restricted the 12 movement of all inmates and staff within prisons, including movement between housing units and 13 offices. Due to these restrictions and the reduction in the number of staff physically present at the 14 prison, counsel has been unable to obtain the documents and materials or speak to witnesses 15 necessary for the preparation of a dispositive motion in this case. Defendants therefore seek an 16 additional sixty days to file a dispositive motion, up to and including July 21, 2020. (Id.) 17 Having considered Defendants’ moving papers, the Court finds good cause to continue the 18 dispositive motion deadline in this action. The Court finds that Plaintiff will not be prejudiced by 19 the brief extension requested here. 20 Based on the foregoing, Defendants’ motion to modify the scheduling order, (ECF No. 21 60), is HEREBY GRANTED. Dispositive motions, other than motions for summary judgment 22 for failure to exhaust administrative remedies, shall be filed on or before July 21, 2020. 23 IT IS SO ORDERED. 24 25 Dated: May 26, 2020 /s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe _ UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 26 27 28