(PC) Ramsey v. Dickerson ( 2022 )

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 DAVID BRANDON RAMSEY, 1:19-cv-00666-DAD-GSA-PC 8 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ THIRD MOTION TO MODIFY SCHEDULING ORDER 9 vs. (ECF No. 45.) 10 C/O A. DICKERSON, et al., ORDER EXTENDING DEADLINES FOR ALL PARTIES 11 Defendants. New Discovery Deadline: August 26, 2022 12 New Dispositive Motions Deadline: October 24, 2022 13 14 15 I. BACKGROUND 16 David Brandon Ramsey (“Plaintiff”) is a civil detainee proceeding pro se and in forma 17 pauperis with this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This case now proceeds with 18 Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint filed on October 5, 2020, against defendants Sergeant A. 19 Jimenez and Correctional Officers A. Dickerson, S. Borlina, and J. Santiago (“Defendants”) for 20 use of excessive force in violation of the Eighth Amendment. (ECF No. 15.) 21 On October 27, 2021, the court issued a Discovery and Scheduling Order establishing 22 pretrial deadlines for the parties, including a discovery deadline of March 27, 2022, and a 23 deadline of May 27, 2022 for filing dispositive motions. (ECF No. 32.) On May 31, 2022, 24 Defendants filed a third motion to modify the Scheduling Order. (ECF No. 45.) Plaintiff has not 25 opposed the motion. 26 II. MOTION TO MODIFY SCHEDULING ORDER 27 Modification of a scheduling order requires a showing of good cause, Fed. R. Civ. P. 28 16(b), and good cause requires a showing of due diligence, Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, 1 Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 609 (9th Cir. 1992). To establish good cause, the party seeking the 2 modification of a scheduling order must generally show that even with the exercise of due 3 diligence, they cannot meet the requirement of the order. Id. The court may also consider the 4 prejudice to the party opposing the modification. Id. If the party seeking to amend the scheduling 5 order fails to show due diligence the inquiry should end and the court should not grant the motion 6 to modify. Zivkovic v. Southern California Edison, Co., 302 F.3d 1080, 1087 (9th Cir. 2002). 7 The court finds good cause to extend the discovery and dispositive motions deadlines in 8 the court’s Discovery and Scheduling Order as requested by Defendants. Therefore, the motion 9 to modify the Discovery and Scheduling Order, filed by Defendants on May 31, 2022, shall be 10 granted. 11 III. CONCLUSION 12 Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 13 1. Defendants’ motion to modify the court’s Discovery and Scheduling Order, filed 14 on May 31, 2022, is GRANTED; 15 2. The discovery deadline is extended from June 27, 2022 to August 26, 2022 for 16 all parties to this action; 17 3. The deadline for filing and serving pretrial dispositive motions is extended from 18 August 25, 2022 to October 24, 2022 for all parties to this action; and 19 4. All other provisions of the court’s October 27, 2021 Discovery and Scheduling 20 Order remain the same. 21 IT IS SO ORDERED. 22 23 Dated: August 3, 2022 /s/ Gary S. Austin UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 24 25 26 27 28