(PC) Kamali v. Stevens ( 2022 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ARBI KAMALI, 1:19-cv-01432-NONE-GSA-PC 12 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO STAY DISCOVERY AND CONTINUE 13 vs. SCHEDULING ORDER DEADLINES PENDING RULING ON MOTION FOR 14 STEVENS, et al., JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS (ECF No. 35.) 15 Defendants. ORDER IMPOSING STAY OF 16 DISCOVERY AND CONTINUING SCHEDULING ORDER DEADLINES, TO 17 BE RESET IF NEEDED AFTER RESOLUTION OF MOTION FOR 18 JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS 19 20 21 22 23 24 I. BACKGROUND 25 Plaintiff Arbi Kamali (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma 26 pauperis in this civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This case now proceeds with 27 Plaintiff’s claims for retaliation and excessive force against defendant correctional officers Rose 28 Stevens, Ivan Villegas, Jordan Bryan, and Alen Hernandez (“Defendants”). (ECF No. 16.) 1 On November 29, 2021, the Court issued a Discovery and Scheduling Order establishing 2 deadlines of March 29, 2022 to amend pleadings, April 28, 2022 to complete discovery, and June 3 28, 2022 to file dispositive motions. (ECF No. 26.) 4 On January 21, 2022, Defendants filed a motion to stay discovery and continue the 5 deadlines in the Discovery and Scheduling Order pending resolution of Defendants’ motion for 6 judgment on the pleadings. (ECF No. 35.) 7 Defendants’ motion to stay discovery and continue the deadlines in the Discovery and 8 Scheduling Order is now before the court. Local Rule 230(l). 9 II. MOTION TO MODIFY SCHEDULING ORDER 10 Modification of a scheduling order requires a showing of good cause, Fed. R. Civ. P. 11 16(b), and good cause requires a showing of due diligence, Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, 12 Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 609 (9th Cir. 1992). To establish good cause, the party seeking the 13 modification of a scheduling order must generally show that even with the exercise of due 14 diligence, they cannot meet the requirement of the order. Id. The court may also consider the 15 prejudice to the party opposing the modification. Id. If the party seeking to amend the scheduling 16 order fails to show due diligence the inquiry should end and the court should not grant the motion 17 to modify. Zivkovic v. Southern California Edison, Co., 302 F.3d 1080, 1087 (9th Cir. 2002). 18 Defendants request the court to stay discovery and continue the deadlines in the court’s 19 Discovery and Scheduling Order pending resolution of Defendants’ motion for judgment on the 20 pleadings based on the favorable termination rule in Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994). 21 Defendants believe that the motion for judgment on the pleadings could dispose of Plaintiff’s 22 entire action without the need for discovery because the motion can be decided without any 23 discovery. 24 The court finds good cause to impose a stay of discovery in this action for all parties and 25 continue the deadlines in the Discovery and Scheduling Order pending resolution of the motion 26 for judgment on the pleadings, to be reset if needed after the court has ruled on the motion for 27 judgment on the pleadings. Moreover, the court finds no prejudice to Plaintiff in modifying the 28 scheduling order in this manner. Therefore, Defendants’ motion shall be granted. 1 III. CONCLUSION 2 Accordingly, based on the foregoing and good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY 3 ORDERED that: 4 1. Defendants’ motion to stay discovery and continue the deadlines in the scheduling 5 order, filed on January 21, 2022, is granted; 6 2. All discovery in this action is stayed, pending resolution of Defendants’ motion 7 for judgment on the pleadings; 8 3. The deadlines in the Discovery and Scheduling Order are continued pending 9 resolution of the motion for judgment on the pleadings; and 10 4. If needed, the court will reset the deadlines following resolution of the pending 11 motion for judgment on the pleadings. 12 IT IS SO ORDERED. 13 14 Dated: February 2, 2022 /s/ Gary S. Austin UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28