(PC) Sealy v. Avila ( 2022 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 FLOYD SEALY, Case No. 2:19-cv-01205-JAM-JDP (PC) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTIONS TO MODIFY THE SCHEDULING 13 v. ORDER AND DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO MODIFY THE SCHEDULING 14 AVILA, et al., ORDER 15 Defendants. ECF Nos. 38, 40, 42, & 43 16 ORDER DIRECTING PLAINTIFF TO FILE AN OPPOSITION OR STATEMENT OF 17 NON-OPPOSITION TO DEFEDANTS’ MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT 18 RESPONSE DUE WITHIN TWENTY-ONE 19 DAYS 20 21 22 Plaintiff is proceeding without counsel in this civil rights action brought under 42 U.S.C. 23 § 1983. Several motions are currently pending before the court, five of which are addressed 24 herein. 25 Plaintiff has filed a motion that appears to request that the discovery deadline be extended 26 so that he can depose defendants Avila and Giardino. ECF No. 38. A court may modify its 27 scheduling order only upon a showing of good cause. Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4). In determining 28 whether good cause exists, courts primarily consider the moving party’s diligence. Johnson v. 1 | Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 608 (9th Cir. 1992). Thus, the “court may modify the 2 | pretrial schedule if it cannot reasonably be met despite the diligence of the party seeking the 3 | extension.” 7d. Plaintiff provides no explanation as to why he was unable to complete Avila and 4 | Giardino’s depositions before the close of discovery. He also has not shown that is able to cover 5 || the expenses for the depositions. See Fed. R. Civ. P. Rule 30(c)(3); Griffin v. Johnson, 2016 WL 6 | 4764670, at *2 (E.D. Cal. Sept. 12, 2016) (“Plaintiff's in forma pauperis status also does not 7 | entitle him to a waiver of any of the costs associated with this form of deposition; instead, he 8 | must pay the necessary deposition officer fee, court reporter fee, and costs for a transcript.”). I 9 | will deny the motion without prejudice. 10 Defendants also have moved to modify the scheduling order so as to extend the deadline 11 | for filing dispositive motions. ECF Nos. 40, 42, & 43. Good cause appearing, I will grant 12 || defendants’ motions and deem their motions for summary judgment timely. ECF Nos. 41 & 44. 13 | Plaintiff is directed to file an opposition or non-opposition to defendants’ motions for summary 14 || judgment within twenty-one days of this order. 15 Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that: 16 1. Plaintiff's motion to modify the scheduling order, ECF No. 38, is denied. 17 2. Defendants’ motions to modify the scheduling order, ECF Nos. 40, 42, & 43, are 18 | granted. 19 3. Defendants Amarillas, Herr, Rocke, and Simmons’ motion for summary judgment, 20 | ECF No. 41, and defendants Avila and Giardino’s motion for summary judgment, ECF No. 44, 21 | are deemed timely. 22 4. Plaintiff shall file an opposition or statement of non-opposition to defendants’ motions 23 | for summary judgment, ECF Nos. 41 & 44, within twenty-one days of this order. 24 95 IT IS SO ORDERED. 26 | q Sty — Dated: _ June 6, 2022 27 JEREMY D,. PETERSON UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE