(PC) Raja v. Cryer ( 2021 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 KHURAM RAJA, Case No. 1:19-cv-00817-DAD-HBK 12 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING IN PART PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO THE EXTENT CERTAIN 13 v. DEADLINES ARE STAYED 14 RYAN KIM, Medical Doctor, (Doc. No. 38) 15 Defendant. 16 17 This matter comes before the court upon initial review of this case that was reassigned to 18 the undersigned on November 17, 2020. (Doc. No. 35). Pending review is defendant’s motion 19 seeking a 60-day extension of time to file a merits-based dispositive motion as previously set in the 20 court’s Discovery and Scheduling Order. (Doc. No. 38). No opposition to the motion was filed. 21 (See docket). For the reasons stated below, the court grants defendant’s motion to the extent the 22 court stays the remaining deadlines in the Discovery and Scheduling Order (Doc. 24) pending 23 resolution of defendant’s exhaustion-based summary judgment motion (Doc. No. 26). 24 Plaintiff Khuram Raja, a former state prisoner, initiated this action on June 12, 2019 by 25 filing a pro se civil rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (Doc. No. 1). The court’s scheduling 26 order issued on July 16, 2020 set, inter alia, an exhaustion summary judgment deadline of October 27 16, 2020 and a substantive dispositive motion deadline of May 27, 2021. (Doc. No. 24). 28 1 On October 15, 2020, defendant moved for summary judgment on the grounds that plaintiff 2 failed to exhaust his administrative remedies prior to bringing this suit against him, as required by 3 the Prison Litigation Reform Act. (Doc. No. 26). The summary judgment motion has been fully 4 briefed and is ripe for this court’s review. (Doc. Nos. 33, 34). Considering pendency of that motion 5 and the imminent deadline to file a merits-based dispositive motion, defendant moves for a 60-day 6 extension of time to file substantive dispositive motions. Defendant argues an extension is 7 warranted because the grant of defendant’s exhaustion-based summary judgment would dispose of 8 the case if granted. Plaintiff did not file an opposition to defendant’s motion and the time for doing 9 so has passed. 10 Under Rule 16(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a scheduling order “may be 11 modified only for good cause and with the judge’s consent.” The good cause standard of Rule 12 16(b) focuses primarily on the diligence of the moving party and the reasons for seeking 13 modification. C.F. ex rel. Farnan v. Capistrano Unified Sch. Dist., 654 F.3d 975, 984 (9th 14 Cir.2011); Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 609 (9th Cir. 1992). This court 15 has found good cause to stay a case pending resolution of a motion for summary judgment. See 16 Smith v. Martinez, No. 1:17-cv-01092-AWI-MJS (PC), 2018 WL 1413712, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 17 21, 2018); Henry v. Contreras, No. 1:14-CV-00791-LJO-SKO-PC, 2016 WL 232317, at *2 (E.D. 18 Cal. Jan. 20, 2016). Moreover, this court enjoys “broad discretion to stay proceedings as an incident 19 to its power to control its own docket.” Clinton v. Jones, 520 U.S. 681, 706 (1997). This discretion 20 includes staying cases sua sponte. Landis v. N. Am. Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254 (1936). 21 The court finds good cause to extend the remaining deadlines in the Case Management and 22 Scheduling Order. Because the court has not yet issued a ruling on the pending exhaustion-based 23 summary judgment motion, the court will order a stay of the deadlines in lieu of granting a specified 24 extension of time. The stay will be lifted upon the court’s ruling on defendant’s exhaustion-based 25 summary judgment motion. A new scheduling order, if necessary, will be issued at that time. 26 Accordingly, it is ORDERED: 27 28 1 Defendant’s motion for extension of time (Doc. No. 38) is GRANTED to the extent the 2 | court stays the remaining deadlines in the Discovery and Scheduling Order (Doc. 24) pending the 3 | court’s ruling of defendant’s exhaustion-based summary judgment motion (Doc. No. 26). 4 5 IT IS SO ORDERED. | ated: May 14, 2021 Mile. Wh fareh Zaskth 7 HELENA M. BARCH-KUCHTA 8 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28