(PC) Solorio v. Sullivan ( 2022 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 ADRIAN SOLORIO, 1:19-cv-00688-NONE-GSA-PC 11 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO MODIFY SCHEDULING 12 vs. ORDER (ECF No. 65.) 13 SULLIVAN, et al., ORDER EXTENDING DEADLINE TO FILE 14 Defendants. DISPOSITIVE MOTIONS FOR ALL PARTIES 15 New Deadline to File Dispositive Motions: 16 JULY 28, 2022 17 Adrian Solorio (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis 18 19 with this civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This case now proceeds with Plaintiff’s 20 Second Amended Complaint, filed on October 8, 2020, against defendants Ottsman and Chavez 21 on Plaintiff’s medical claims under the Eighth Amendment; and against defendants Ottsman, 22 Chavez, Clayton, Maciejewski, and Cardenas for use of excessive force under the Eighth 23 Amendment. (ECF No. 21.) 24 On November 29, 2021, the court issued a Discovery and Scheduling Order establishing 25 pretrial deadlines for the parties, including a deadline of June 28, 2022 for filing dispositive 26 motions. (ECF No. 54.) On June 27, 2022, defendants Clayton, Ottsman, Chavez, and Cardenas 27 (“Defendants”) filed a motion to modify the Discovery and Scheduling Order to extend the 28 deadline for filing pretrial dispositive motions to July 28, 2022. (ECF No. 65.) 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 deadline for filing dispositive motions in the 11 Court’s Discovery and Scheduling Order to July 28, 2022. Therefore, the motion to modify the 12 Discovery and Scheduling Order, filed by Defendants on June 27, 2022 shall be granted. 13 III. CONCLUSION 14 Based on the foregoing and good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 15 1. Defendants’ motion to modify the Court’s Discovery and Scheduling Order, filed 16 on June 27, 2022, is GRANTED; 17 2. The deadline for filing pretrial dispositive motions is extended from June 28, 2022 18 to July 28, 2022 for all parties to this action; and 19 3. All other provisions of the Court’s November 29, 2021 Discovery and Scheduling 20 Order remain the same. 21 IT IS SO ORDERED. 22 23 Dated: June 28, 2022 /s/ Gary S. Austin UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 24 25 26 27 28