Lewis v. Adams

Full title: HOMER TYRONE LEWIS, Plaintiff, v. DERRAL G. ADAMS, et al., Defendants.

Court: UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Date published: Mar 22, 2013

Case No. 1:10-cv-00266-LJO-DLB PC (E.D. Cal. Mar. 22, 2013)

Opinion

Case No. 1:10-cv-00266-LJO-DLB PC

03-22-2013

HOMER TYRONE LEWIS, Plaintiff, v. DERRAL G. ADAMS, et al., Defendants.

Dennis L. Beck

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS'

MOTION TO MODIFY DISCOVERY AND

SCHEDULING ORDER

ECF No. 77

Dispositive Motion Deadline: April 15, 2013

Plaintiff Homer Tyrone Lewis ("Plaintiff") is a prisoner in the custody of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation ("CDCR"). Plaintiff is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action is proceeding on Plaintiff's first amended complaint against Defendants Adams, Junious, Lopez, and Davis for retaliation in violation of the First Amendment, and against Defendants Adams, Junious, Lopez, Davis, and Morrison for deliberate indifference to Plaintiff's safety in violation of the Eighth Amendment. On January 28, 2013, Defendants moved for modification of the Court's scheduling order. ECF No. 77. The matter is submitted pursuant to Local Rule 230(l).

The decision to modify a scheduling order is within the broad discretion of the district court. Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 607 (9th Cir. 1992) (quoting Miller v. Safeco Title Ins. Co., 758 F.2d 364, 369 (9th Cir. 1985)). Pursuant to Rule 16 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a pretrial scheduling order "shall not be modified except upon a showing of good cause," and leave of court. Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4); Zivkovic v. S. Cal. Edison Co., 302 F.3d 1080, 1087-88 (9th Cir. 2002). Although "the existence or degree of prejudice to the party opposing the modification might supply additional reasons to deny a motion, the focus of the inquiry is upon the moving party's reasons for seeking modification." Johnson, 975 F.2d at 609.

Defendants move for a modification of the dispositive motion deadline. Defendants' counsel declares that he is working on numerous other matters with pressing discovery and motions. Good cause appearing, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Defendants' motion for modification of the scheduling order, filed January 28, 2013, is granted;
2. The dispositive motion deadline is April 15, 2013.

IT IS SO ORDERED. Dennis L. Beck
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE