(PC) Boone v. CSP Corcoran Warden ( 2023 )

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 DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO MODIFY SCHEDULING 13 vs. ORDER (ECF No. 48.) 14 CSP CORCORAN WARDEN, et al., ORDER EXTENDING DEADLINES FOR ALL 15 Defendants. PARTIES 16 New Discovery Deadline: 17 May 5, 2023 18 New Deadline to File Dispositive Motions: July 7, 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 (“Defendants”) for use of excessive force in violation of the 26 Eighth 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). On October 14, 2023, the Court granted 2 Plaintiff’s motion to modify the scheduling order. (ECF No. 44.) 3 The current deadline for completing discovery, including the filing of motions to compel, 4 is April 7, 2023; and the current deadline for filing dispositive motions is June 9, 2023. (ECF 5 No. 44.) 6 On April 7, 2023, Defendants filed a motion to extend the deadlines in the Scheduling 7 Order. (ECF No. 48.) 8 II. MOTION TO MODIFY SCHEDULING ORDER 9 Modification of a scheduling order requires a showing of good cause, Fed. R. Civ. P. 10 16(b), and good cause requires a showing of due diligence, Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, 11 Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 609 (9th Cir. 1992). To establish good cause, the party seeking the 12 modification of a scheduling order must generally show that even with the exercise of due 13 diligence, they cannot meet the requirement of the order. Id. The court may also consider the 14 prejudice to the party opposing the modification. Id. If the party seeking to amend the scheduling 15 order fails to show due diligence the inquiry should end and the court should not grant the motion 16 to modify. Zivkovic v. Southern California Edison, Co., 302 F.3d 1080, 1087 (9th Cir. 2002). 17 The Court finds good cause to extend the deadlines in the Court’s Amended Discovery 18 and Scheduling Order. Therefore, Defendants’ motion to modify the Scheduling Order shall be 19 granted. 20 III. CONCLUSION 21 Based on the foregoing and good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 22 1. Defendants’ motion to modify the Court’s Amended Scheduling Order, filed on 23 April 7, 2023, is GRANTED; 24 2. The deadline for completing discovery, including the filing of motions to compel, 25 is extended from April 7, 2023 to May 5, 2023 for all parties to this action; 26 3. The deadline for filing dispositive motions is extended from June 9, 2023 to July 27 7, 2023 for all parties to this action; and 28 1 3. All other provisions of the court’s July 8, 2022 Amended Discovery and 2 Scheduling Order remain the same. 3 IT IS SO ORDERED. 4 5 Dated: April 10, 2023 /s/ Gary S. Austin UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28