(PC) Solvey v. Gates ( 2022 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 STANLEY H. SOLVEY, 1:19-cv-01444-JLT-GSA-PC 12 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT ZEPP’S MOTION TO MODIFY 13 vs. SCHEDULING ORDER (ECF No. 49.) 14 S. GATES, et al., ORDER EXTENDING DEADLINE TO FILE 15 Defendants. DISPOSITIVE MOTIONS FOR ALL PARTIES 16 New Dispositive Motions Deadline: June 28, 2022 17 18 19 I. BACKGROUND 20 Stanley H. Solvey (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis 21 with this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This case now proceeds with Plaintiff’s 22 First Amended Complaint filed on January 14, 2020, against defendant Dr. Andrew Zepp for 23 refusing to provide Plaintiff with sufficient pain medication as he awaited surgery, in violation 24 of the Eighth Amendment. (ECF No. 14.) 25 On October 14, 2021, the court issued a Discovery and Scheduling Order establishing 26 pretrial deadlines for the parties, including a deadline of May 14, 2022, for filing dispositive 27 motions. (ECF No. 45.) On May 9, 2022, defendant Zepp filed a motion to modify the 28 Scheduling Order. (ECF No. 49.) 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 The court finds good cause to extend the dispositive motions deadline in the court’s 11 Discovery and Scheduling order. Therefore, the motion to modify the Discovery and Scheduling 12 Order filed by defendant Zepp, shall be granted. 13 III. CONCLUSION 14 Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 15 1. Defendant Zepp’s motion to modify the court’s Discovery and Scheduling Order, 16 filed on May 9, 2022, is GRANTED; 17 2. The deadline for filing and serving pretrial dispositive motions is extended from 18 May 14, 2022 to June 28, 2022 for all parties to this action; and 19 3. All other provisions of the court’s October 14, 2021 Discovery and Scheduling 20 Order remain the same. 21 IT IS SO ORDERED. 22 23 Dated: May 10, 2022 /s/ Gary S. Austin UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 24 25 26 27 28