Norwood v. Cate

Full title: GREGORY LYNN NORWOOD, Plaintiff, v. MATTHEW L. CATE, et al., Defendants.

Court: UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Date published: Jul 25, 2013

Case No. 1:09-cv-00330-AWI-SAB (PC) (E.D. Cal. Jul. 25, 2013)

Opinion

Case No. 1:09-cv-00330-AWI-SAB (PC)

07-25-2013

GREGORY LYNN NORWOOD, Plaintiff, v. MATTHEW L. CATE, et al., Defendants.

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION

FOR ADDITIONAL DISCOVERY

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S

MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME

(ECF No. 111)

Plaintiff Gregory Lynn Norwood ("Plaintiff"), a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed this civil rights action on April 16, 2009, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action is proceeding against Defendants Kenneth Clark, K. Allison, T.P. Wan, J. Reynoso, and W.J. Sullivan for subjecting Plaintiff to unconstitutional conditions of confinement in violation of the Eighth Amendment. On July 24, 2013, Plaintiff filed a motion for additional discovery and postponement of his opposition to Defendants' motion for summary judgment. (ECF No. 111.)

The Court is vested with broad discretion to manage discovery. Hunt v. Cnty. of Orange,672 F.3d 606, 616 (9th Cir. 2012); Surfvivor Media, Inc. v. Survivor Prods., 406 F.3d 625, 635 (9th Cir. 2005); Hallett v. Morgan, 296 F.3d 732, 751 (9th Cir. 2002). Modification of the pretrial scheduling order requires a showing of good cause. 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. S. Cal. Edison Co., 302 F.3d 1080, 1087 (9th Cir. 2002) (quoting Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 607 (9th Cir. 1992)). "If the party seeking the modification 'was not diligent, the inquiry should end' and the motion to modify should not be granted." Id.

Discovery closed in this case on March 10, 2011. (ECF No. 28.) Plaintiff fails to show good cause as to why discovery should be reopened The Court is not inclined to reopen discovery more than two years after the deadline already passed. Accordingly,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff's motion for additional discovery is DENIED; and
2. Plaintiff is granted thirty (30) days from the date of service of this order in which to file an opposition to Defendants' motion for summary judgment.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

_________________

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE