ALVAREZ v. HASHEMI

Case No. 1:16-cv-00203-AWI-SKO (PC).

RAUL ALVAREZ, Plaintiff, v. NASTRAN HASHEMI, Defendant.

United States District Court, E.D. California.

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


Attorney(s) appearing for the Case

Raul Alvarez, Plaintiff, Pro Se.

Nastran Hashemi, Defendant, represented by James C. Phillips , Office of the Attorney General.


ORDER MODIFYING SCHEDULING ORDER EXTENDING DEADLINE FOR DISPOSITIVE MOTIONS

(Docs. 23, 27)

SHEILA K. OBERTO, Magistrate Judge.

I. Background

Plaintiff, Raul Alvarez, a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff filed this action on February 5, 2016, and is proceeding on claims of deliberate indifference to Plaintiff's serious medical needs in violation of the Eighth Amendment against Defendant, Nastran Hashemi. The current Discovery and Scheduling Order issued on September 29, 2016, and set August 10, 2017, as the deadline for filing dispositive motions. (Doc. 23.) On August 7, 2017, Defendant filed a motion requesting to extend that deadline to September 22, 2017. (Doc. 27.) While the time for Plaintiff to file an opposition has not yet lapsed, he will not be prejudiced by premature consideration of Defendant's motion as the extension granted herein is extended on his behalf as well.

II. Modification of Scheduling Order

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure1 16(b) requires a party show "good cause" when seeking to modify a scheduling order. Rule 16(b)'s good cause standard focuses primarily on the diligence of the moving party, id., and the reasons for seeking modification, C.F. ex rel. Farnan v. Capistrano Unified Sch. Dist., 654 F.3d 975, 984 (9th Cir.2011). If the party seeking to amend the scheduling order fails to show due diligence, the inquiry should end and the court should not grant the motion to modify. Zivkovic v. Southern California Edison, Co., 302 F.3d 1080, 1087 (9th Cir. 2002). Defendant's motion shows that he has exercised due diligence, but has been unable to prepare a dispositive motion in this case because of an upcoming, out of state trial and new assignments due to the recent departure of another Deputy. This satisfies Rule 16(b)'s good cause standard.

III. Order

Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

(1) Defendant's motion to extend the dispositive motion filing deadline, filed on August 7, 2017, (Doc. 27), is GRANTED; (2) the deadline for filing pre-trial dispositive motions is extended to September 22, 2017; and (3) other than the above modification of deadlines, all requirements of the September 9, 2016 Discovery and Scheduling Order, (Doc. 23), remain in effect.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

FootNotes


1. The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure will be referred to as "Rule*." Any reference to other statutory authorities shall so indicate.

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