Opinion
1:12cv01963 LJO DLB PC
03-01-2016
MARK A. JONES, Plaintiff, v. S. NIEHUS, et al., Defendants.
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO MODIFY THE DISCOVERY AND SCHEDULING ORDER (Document 43)
Plaintiff Mark A. Jones ("Plaintiff") is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1983. The action is proceeding on Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint for First Amendment retaliation against Defendant A. Maxfield.
Pursuant to the most recent scheduling modification, the dispositive motion deadline was February 29, 2016.
The deadline was actually February 27, 2016, a Saturday. --------
Defendant Maxfield filed the instant motion to extend the dispositive motion deadline to March 4, 2016. The Court deems the matter suitable for decision without an opposition. Local Rule 230(l). /// ///
DISCUSSION
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. Southern California 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.
Here, Defendant requests an extension of the dispositive motion deadline by four days, to March 4, 2016, based on counsel's work demands. Good cause appearing, the motion is GRANTED. The Court extends the dispositive motion deadline to March 4 , 2016. IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: March 1 , 2016
/s/ Dennis L . Beck
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE