(PC) Zaiza v. Clark ( 2022 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JOSE R. ZAIZA, 1:19-cv-01476-DAD-GSA-PC 12 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO MODIFY SCHEDULING 13 v. ORDER (ECF No. 39.) 14 CLARK, et al., ORDER EXTENDING DEADLINES FOR 15 Defendants. ALL PARTIES 16 New Discovery Deadline: October 5, 2022 17 New Dispositive Motions Deadline: 18 December 5, 2022 19 20 21 I. BACKGROUND 22 Jose Roberto Zaiza (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma 23 pauperis with this civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff filed the 24 Complaint commencing this action on October 17, 2019. (ECF No. 1.) This case now proceeds 25 with the First Amended Complaint against Defendants Ken Clark (Warden) and Captain J. 26 Gallagher1 (collectively, “Defendants”) for insufficient access to out-of-cell exercise in violation 27 28 1 Sued as Gallager. 1 of the Eighth Amendment.2 (ECF No. 11.) On March 1, 2022, the court issued a Discovery and 2 Scheduling Order establishing pretrial deadlines for the parties, including a discovery deadline 3 of August 1, 2022 and a dispositive motions filing deadline of October 1, 2022. (ECF No. 31.) 4 On June 10, 2022, Plaintiff filed a motion to modify the Scheduling Order. (ECF No. 39.) 5 II. MOTION TO MODIFY SCHEDULING ORDER 6 Modification of a scheduling order requires a showing of good cause, Fed. R. Civ. P. 7 16(b), and good cause requires a showing of due diligence, Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, 8 Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 609 (9th Cir. 1992). To establish good cause, the party seeking the 9 modification of a scheduling order must generally show that even with the exercise of due 10 diligence, they cannot meet the requirement of the order. Id. The court may also consider the 11 prejudice to the party opposing the modification. Id. If the party seeking to amend the scheduling 12 order fails to show due diligence the inquiry should end and the court should not grant the motion 13 to modify. Zivkovic v. Southern California Edison, Co., 302 F.3d 1080, 1087 (9th Cir. 2002). 14 The Court finds good cause to extend the discovery deadline in the Court’s Discovery 15 and Scheduling Order to October 5, 2022. In addition, the Court shall extend the dispositive 16 motions filing deadline to December 5, 2022. Therefore, the motion to modify the Discovery 17 and Scheduling Order filed by Plaintiff on June 10, 2022 shall be granted. 18 III. CONCLUSION 19 Based on the foregoing and good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 20 1. Plaintiff’s motion to modify the Court’s Discovery and Scheduling Order, filed 21 on June 10, 2022, is GRANTED; 22 2. The discovery deadline is extended from August 1, 2022, to October 5, 2022 for 23 all parties to this action; 24 3. The dispositive motions filing deadline is extended from October 1, 2022 to 25 26 2 On April 20, 2021, the court issued an order dismissing all claims and defendants from this case except for Plaintiff’s adverse conditions of confinement claims against defendants Clark, 27 Gallagher, and Baughman, for Plaintiff’s failure to state a claim. (ECF No. 15.) On January 27, 2022, 28 the Court granted in part Defendants’ motion to dismiss, dismissing Defendant Baughman from this case. (ECF No. 21.) 1 December 5, 2022 for all parties to this action; and 2 4. All other provisions of the Court’s March 1, 2022 Discovery and Scheduling 3 Order remain the same. 4 IT IS SO ORDERED. 5 6 Dated: June 21, 2022 /s/ Gary S. Austin UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28