OWENS v. CLARK

No. 2:15-cv-0982 TLN KJN P.

DERRICK OWENS, Plaintiff, v. JACKIE CLARK, et al., Defendants.

United States District Court, E.D. California.

Editors Note
Applicable Law: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Cause: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Nature of Suit: 550 Prisoner: Civil Rights
Source: PACER


Attorney(s) appearing for the Case

Derrick Owens, Plaintiff, Pro Se.

Jackie Clark, Defendant, represented by Oliver Robert Lewis , Office of the Attorney General.

Michele Ditomas, Defendant, represented by Oliver Robert Lewis , Office of the Attorney General.

Francis Ko, Defendant, represented by Oliver Robert Lewis , Office of the Attorney General.

Zink, Defendant, represented by Oliver Robert Lewis , Office of the Attorney General.

W. Harris, Defendant, represented by Oliver Robert Lewis , Office of the Attorney General.


ORDER

KENDALL J. NEWMAN, Magistrate Judge.

Plaintiff is a state prisoner, proceeding pro se. On June 2, 2017, plaintiff filed a motion to modify the scheduling order to extend the deadline for discovery by sixty days based on defense counsel's statement of unavailability from May 15, 2017, through June 5, 2017. (ECF No. 52 at 2, 3-4.) Under the discovery and scheduling order, the deadline for discovery was set for June 5, 2017. However, because defense counsel was not available, plaintiff was unable to complete discovery as to defendant Ko. Despite plaintiff's due diligence, he will be unable to comply with the June 5, 2017 deadline.

"The district court is given broad discretion in supervising the pretrial phase of litigation." Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 607 (9th Cir. 1992) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). Rule 16(b) provides that "[a] schedule may be modified only for good cause and with the judge's consent." Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4). "The schedule may be modified `if it cannot reasonably be met despite the diligence of the party seeking the extension.'" Zivkovic v. Southern California Edison Co., 302 F.3d 1080, 1087 (9th Cir. 2002) (quoting Johnson, 975 F.2d at 607).

Plaintiff has demonstrated good cause and diligence to extend the discovery deadline. Due to the extension of the discovery deadline, the pretrial motions deadline will also be extended. Plaintiff is cautioned that he must pursue discovery without further delay as the court is not inclined to grant further extensions of these deadlines. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY

ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff's motion (ECF No. 52) is granted;

2. The June 5, 2017 discovery deadline is extended to September 15, 2017;

3. The September 5, 2017 pretrial motions deadline is extended to December 15, 2017; and

4. In all other respects, the February 1, 2017 discovery and scheduling order remains in intact.


Comment

1000 Characters Remaining

Leagle.com reserves the right to edit or remove comments but is under no obligation to do so, or to explain individual moderation decisions.

User Comments

Listed below are the cases that are cited in this Featured Case. Click the citation to see the full text of the cited case. Citations are also linked in the body of the Featured Case.

Cited Cases

  • No Cases Found

Listed below are those cases in which this Featured Case is cited. Click on the case name to see the full text of the citing case.

Citing Cases