(PC) Washington v. Hicks ( 2022 )

1 2 3 4 5 , 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 9 TRACYE BENARD WASHINGTON, 1:19-cv-00156-JLT-GSA-PC 10 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S 11 MOTION TO MODIFY DISCOVERY AND vs. SCHEDULING ORDER 12 (ECF No. 94.) HICKS, et al., 13 ORDER EXTENDING DISCOVERY Defendants. DEADLINE FOR ALL PARTIES 14 15 New Discovery Deadline: April 10, 2022 16 17 I. BACKGROUND 18 Tracye Benard Washington (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with this 19 civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This case now proceeds with Plaintiff’s 20 Complaint filed on February 5, 2019, against defendants Sergeant David Hicks and Correctional 21 Officer Hipolito Rocha (“Defendants”) for use of excessive force in violation of the Eighth 22 Amendment. (ECF No. 1.) 23 On December 8, 2020, the court issued a Discovery and Scheduling Order, establishing 24 pretrial deadlines for the parties. (ECF No. 28.) On January 19, 2022, the Court extended the 25 discovery deadline to March 31, 2022. (ECF No. 88.) 26 On March 14, 2022, Plaintiff filed a motion to extend the discovery deadline in this action 27 from March 31, 2022 to April 10, 2022. (ECF No. 94.) On March 30, 2022, Defendant Hicks 28 filed a statement of non-opposition to Plaintiff’s motion. (ECF No. 99.) 1 II. MOTION TO MODIFY SCHEDULING ORDER 2 Modification of a scheduling order requires a showing of good cause, Fed. R. Civ. P. 3 16(b), and good cause requires a showing of due diligence, Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, 4 Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 609 (9th Cir. 1992). To establish good cause, the party seeking the 5 modification of a scheduling order must generally show that even with the exercise of due 6 diligence, they cannot meet the requirement of the order. Id. The court may also consider the 7 prejudice to the party opposing the modification. Id. If the party seeking to amend the scheduling 8 order fails to show due diligence the inquiry should end and the court should not grant the motion 9 to modify. Zivkovic v. Southern California Edison, Co., 302 F.3d 1080, 1087 (9th Cir. 2002). 10 Plaintiff seeks a ten-day extension of the discovery deadline, from March 31, 2022 to 11 April 10, 2022. Neither Defendant has opposed Plaintiff’s motion and the Court finds no 12 prejudice to any party. Therefore the court finds good cause to extend the discovery deadline for 13 all parties. Therefore, Plaintiff’s motion to modify the Discovery and Scheduling Order shall be 14 granted. 15 III. CONCLUSION 16 Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 17 1. Plaintiff’s motion to modify the court’s Discovery and Scheduling Order, filed on 18 March 14, 2022, is GRANTED; 19 2. The deadline for the completion of discovery is extended from March 31, 2022 to 20 April 10, 2022 for all parties to this action; and 21 3. All other provisions of the court’s December 8, 2020 Discovery and Scheduling 22 Order remain the same. 23 IT IS SO ORDERED. 24 25 Dated: March 31, 2022 /s/ Gary S. Austin UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 26 27 28