(PC) Boone v. CSP Corcoran Warden ( 2022 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 EMANUEL BOONE, 1:19-cv-01232-JLT-GSA-PC 12 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S UNOPPOSED MOTION TO MODIFY 13 vs. SCHEDULING ORDER (ECF No. 37.) 14 CSP CORCORAN WARDEN, et al., ORDER EXTENDING DEADLINES FOR ALL 15 Defendants. PARTIES 16 New Discovery Deadline: 17 April 7, 2023 18 New Deadline to File Dispositive Motions: June 9, 2023 19 20 I. BACKGROUND 21 Emanuel Boone (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis 22 with this civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff filed the Complaint 23 commencing this action on September 6, 2019. (ECF No. 1.) This case now proceeds with the 24 First Amended Complaint filed on October 5, 2020, against defendants Burnes, Tapia, Flores, 25 Brandon, Dowdy, Blanco, and Vega for use of excessive force in violation of the Eighth 26 Amendment. (ECF No. 13.) 27 On April 18, 2022, the court issued the Discovery and Scheduling Order setting out 28 pretrial deadlines for the parties, (ECF No. 32), and on July 8, 2022, the court issued an Amended 1 Discovery and Scheduling Order (ECF No. 39). The current deadline for completing discovery, 2 including the filing of motions to compel, is January 8, 2023; and the current deadline for filing 3 dispositive motions is March 8, 2023. (ECF No. 39.) 4 On September 22, 2022, Plaintiff filed a motion to extend the deadlines in the Scheduling 5 Order by two to three months. (ECF No. 42.) On October 12, 2022, Defendants filed a statement 6 of non-opposition to modification of the Scheduling Order. (ECF No. 43.) 7 II. MOTION TO MODIFY SCHEDULING ORDER 8 Modification of a scheduling order requires a showing of good cause, Fed. R. Civ. P. 9 16(b), and good cause requires a showing of due diligence, Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, 10 Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 609 (9th Cir. 1992). To establish good cause, the party seeking the 11 modification of a scheduling order must generally show that even with the exercise of due 12 diligence, they cannot meet the requirement of the order. Id. The court may also consider the 13 prejudice to the party opposing the modification. Id. If the party seeking to amend the scheduling 14 order fails to show due diligence the inquiry should end and the court should not grant the motion 15 to modify. Zivkovic v. Southern California Edison, Co., 302 F.3d 1080, 1087 (9th Cir. 2002). 16 The Court finds good cause to extend the deadlines in the Court’s Amended Discovery 17 and Scheduling Order. Therefore, Plaintiff’s motion to modify the Scheduling Order shall be 18 granted. 19 III. CONCLUSION 20 Based on the foregoing and good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 21 1. Plaintiff’s motion to modify the Court’s Scheduling Order, filed on September 22, 22 2022, is GRANTED; 23 2. The deadline for completing discovery, including the filing of motions to compel, 24 is extended from January 8, 2023 to April 7, 2023 for all parties to this action; 25 3. The deadline for filing dispositive motions is extended from March 8, 2023 to 26 June 9, 2023 for all parties to this action; and 27 3. All other provisions of the court’s July 8, 2022 Amended Discovery and 28 Scheduling Order remain the same. 1 IT IS SO ORDERED. 2 3 Dated: October 13, 2022 /s/ Gary S. Austin UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28