(PC) Rivas v. Williams ( 2020 )

1 2 3 4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 7 8 DANIEL J. RIVAS, Case No. 1:19-cv-00328-BAM (PC) 9 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO MODIFY THE DISCOVERY 10 v. AND SCHEDULING ORDER (ECF No. 30) 11 WILLIAMS, et al., Exhaustion Motion Deadline: December 4, 12 Defendants. 2020 13 14 Plaintiff Daniel J. Rivas (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma 15 pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. All parties have consented to 16 United States Magistrate Judge jurisdiction. (ECF Nos. 6, 24.) This action proceeds against 17 Defendants Williams and Garcia for deliberate indifference to a serious medical need in violation 18 of the Eighth Amendment. 19 Pursuant to the Court’s July 22, 2020 Discovery and Scheduling Order, the deadline for 20 filing motions for summary judgment for failure to exhaust administrative remedies is October 21 22, 2020. (ECF No. 28.) 22 Currently before the Court is Defendants’ October 21, 2020 motion to modify the 23 discovery and scheduling order to extend the deadline to file a motion for summary judgment for 24 failure to exhaust administrative remedies until December 4, 2020. (ECF No. 30.) Although 25 Plaintiff has not had an opportunity to respond to the motion, the Court finds a response 26 unnecessary and the motion is deemed submitted. Local Rule 230(l). 27 Pursuant to Rule 16(b), a scheduling order “may be modified only for good cause and 28 with the judge’s consent.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4). The “good cause” standard “primarily 1 considers the diligence of the party seeking the amendment.” Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, 2 Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 609 (9th Cir. 1992). The court may modify the scheduling order “if it cannot 3 reasonably be met despite the diligence of the party seeking the extension.” Id. If the party was 4 not diligent, the inquiry should end. Id. 5 Defense counsel states that good cause exists to modify the scheduling order because 6 Defendants have been diligently preparing their motion for summary judgment based on 7 exhaustion grounds, but still require additional time to review all relevant documents and exhibits 8 to adequately complete that motion. (ECF No. 30.) Defendants state that Plaintiff has filed a 9 voluminous number of appeals with different grievance offices since the time of his incarceration, 10 the totality of which requires additional time to review to determine their relevancy as to the 11 single issue of Plaintiff’s exhaustion of his claims against both Defendants. Moreover, defense 12 counsel’s caseload has taken necessary time away from the full preparation of Defendants’ 13 motion for summary judgment despite her efforts to complete the motion before the current 14 deadline. Defendants request that the current deadline be extended by an additional forty-five 15 days, and that all other deadlines remain in place. (Id.) 16 Having considered Defendants’ request, the Court finds good cause to continue the 17 exhaustion motion deadline in this action. The Court finds that Plaintiff will not be prejudiced by 18 the brief extension requested here, and it will not result in a delay in the prosecution of this case 19 as all other deadlines will remain in place. 20 Based on the foregoing, Defendants’ motion to modify the discovery and scheduling 21 order, (ECF No. 30), is HEREBY GRANTED. Motions for summary judgment for failure to 22 exhaust administrative remedies shall be filed on or before December 4, 2020. 23 IT IS SO ORDERED. 24 25 Dated: October 22, 2020 /s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe _ UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 26 27 28