Opinion
Case No.: 1:09-cv-01264-AWI-BAM PC
11-01-2013
ANTHONY JOHNSON, Plaintiff, v. L. GONZALEZ, et al., Defendants.
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO
AMEND THE COMPLAINT
(ECF No. 94)
I. Introduction
Plaintiff Anthony Johnson ("Plaintiff") is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action proceeds on Plaintiff's complaint, filed on July 21, 2009, against Defendants L. Gonzalez and A. Murrieta for excessive force in violation of the Eighth Amendment.
Currently before the Court is Plaintiff's motion to amend his complaint filed on October 25, 2013. The Court finds an opposition unnecessary and the motion is deemed submitted. Local Rule 230(l).
II. Procedural Background
On May 25, 2010, the Court issued a Discovery and Scheduling Order. Pursuant to that order, the deadline to amend pleadings was November 25, 2010. (ECF No. 19.) Subsequent to that time, on March 30, 2011, Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment. On June 6, 2011, the then- assigned Magistrate Judge recommended that Defendants' motion for summary judgment be granted, relying in part on Plaintiff's unanswered admissions. (ECF No. 70.) Plaintiff filed objections to the findings and recommendations, along with a request that the Court allow him to amend or to withdraw his admissions pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 36. (ECF No. 71.) On January 9, 2012, the Court adopted the findings and recommendations and granted summary judgment in favor of defendants. (ECF No. 77.) On that same day, the Clerk of the Court entered judgment in favor of Defendants. (ECF No. 78.) Plaintiff appealed. (ECF No. 83.)
On May 23, 2013, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals issued a memorandum finding that the District Court abused its discretion in declining to consider Plaintiff's request to amend or withdraw his admissions under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 36(b). The Ninth Circuit determined that if Plaintiff's request had been granted, it would have defeated summary judgment. Accordingly, the Ninth Circuit reversed the Court's grant of summary judgment and remanded the matter. (ECF No. 87.) The Ninth Circuit issued its formal mandate on June 18, 2013. (ECF No. 88.)
Following remand, on August 15, 2013, the Court vacated its order granting summary judgment and the entry judgment. The Court also granted Plaintiff's request to withdraw his admissions and set a new dispositive motion deadline of November 1, 2013. (ECF No. 91.)
III. Discussion
A. Legal Standard
Plaintiff requested leave to amend his complaint on October 25, 2013. However, the deadline set to file an amended complaint was November 25, 2010. Plaintiff's request is therefore construed as one to amend the discovery and scheduling order pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16.
Pursuant to Rule 16(b), a scheduling order "may be modified only for good cause and with the judge's consent." Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4). The "good cause" standard "primarily considers the diligence of the party seeking the amendment." Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 609 (9th Cir. 1992). The district court may modify the scheduling order "if it cannot reasonably be met despite the diligence of the party seeking the extension." Id. If the party was not diligent, the inquiry should end. Id.
B. Analysis
Here, Plaintiff has not provided any basis, much less good cause, to modify the discovery and scheduling order. Indeed, he has not provided the Court with any information regarding his proposed amendments. Plaintiff also has not provided any explanation for his delay in seeking to amend the complaint until this late stage of the proceedings. Plaintiff had adequate time to request leave to amend prior to the expiration of the deadline on November 25, 2010. Accordingly, the Court does not find good cause to modify the scheduling order for the purpose of amending the complaint.
IV. Conclusion and Order
For the reasons stated, Plaintiff's motion to amend the complaint is DENIED. IT IS SO ORDERED.
Barbara A. McAuliffe
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE