Rademaker v. Juarez ( 2020 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 David RADEMAKER, Case No.: 18-cv-1831-WQH-AGS 11 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST FOR EXTENSION (ECF 12 v. No. 43) 13 J. JUAREZ, et al., 14 Defendants. 15 16 In his motion for injunctive relief,1 plaintiff also requests an extension to the 17 scheduling order. (ECF No. 43, at 7.) The requested extension is DENIED. 18 Plaintiff David Rademaker, a state inmate proceeding pro se, requests additional 19 time to achieve mental stability to litigate his ongoing cases. But this Court previously 20 granted an extension for this same reason following Rademaker’s hospitalization. (See ECF 21 No. 41.) A scheduling order “may be modified only for good cause and with the judge’s 22 consent.” Fed R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4). Good cause exists if the scheduling order “cannot 23 reasonably be met despite the diligence of the party seeking the extension.” Johnson v. 24 Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 609 (9th Cir. 1992). The court “is given broad 25 discretion in supervising the pretrial phase of the litigation and its decisions regarding the 26 27 1 Plaintiff’s motion for injunctive relief is addressed in a separate Report and 28 1 || preclusive effect of a pretrial order . . . will not be disturbed unless they evidence a clear 2 || abuse of discretion.” /d. at 607. Rademaker has not shown why he requires additional time 3 ||beyond the previous extension and fails to suggest that he cannot reasonably meet the 4 current deadline. (See ECF No. 41.) 5 For these reasons, the Court denies Rademaker’s requested extension. But the 6 || request is denied without prejudice, in the event Rademaker is able to satisfy the required 7 ||showing sometime in the future. 8 ||Dated: January 23, 2020 i f 9 10 Hon. ndrew G. Schopler United States Magistrate Judge 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28