From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Sealy v. Avila

United States District Court, Eastern District of California
Jun 6, 2022
2:19-cv-01205-JAM-JDP (PC) (E.D. Cal. Jun. 6, 2022)

Opinion

2:19-cv-01205-JAM-JDP (PC)

06-06-2022

FLOYD SEALY, Plaintiff, v. AVILA, et al., Defendants.


ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS' MOTIONS TO MODIFY THE SCHEDULING ORDER AND DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO MODIFY THE SCHEDULING ORDER

ECF Nos. 38, 40, 42, & 43

ORDER DIRECTING PLAINTIFF TO FILE AN OPPOSITION OR STATEMENT OF NON-OPPOSITION TO DEFEDANTS' MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

RESPONSE DUE WITHIN TWENTY-ONE DAYS

JEREMY D. PETERSON UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Plaintiff is proceeding without counsel in this civil rights action brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Several motions are currently pending before the court, five of which are addressed herein.

Plaintiff has filed a motion that appears to request that the discovery deadline be extended so that he can depose defendants Avila and Giardino. ECF No. 38. A court may modify its scheduling order only upon a showing of good cause. Fed.R.Civ.P. 16(b)(4). In determining whether good cause exists, courts primarily consider the moving party's diligence. Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 608 (9th Cir. 1992). Thus, the “court may modify the pretrial schedule if it cannot reasonably be met despite the diligence of the party seeking the extension.” Id. Plaintiff provides no explanation as to why he was unable to complete Avila and Giardino's depositions before the close of discovery. He also has not shown that is able to cover the expenses for the depositions. See Fed.R.Civ.P. Rule 30(c)(3); Griffin v. Johnson, 2016 WL 4764670, at *2 (E.D. Cal. Sept. 12, 2016) (“Plaintiff's in forma pauperis status also does not entitle him to a waiver of any of the costs associated with this form of deposition; instead, he must pay the necessary deposition officer fee, court reporter fee, and costs for a transcript.”). I will deny the motion without prejudice.

Defendants also have moved to modify the scheduling order so as to extend the deadline for filing dispositive motions. ECF Nos. 40, 42, & 43. Good cause appearing, I will grant defendants' motions and deem their motions for summary judgment timely. ECF Nos. 41 & 44. Plaintiff is directed to file an opposition or non-opposition to defendants' motions for summary judgment within twenty-one days of this order.

Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff's motion to modify the scheduling order, ECF No. 38, is denied.
2. Defendants' motions to modify the scheduling order, ECF Nos. 40, 42, & 43, are granted.
3. Defendants Amarillas, Herr, Rocke, and Simmons' motion for summary judgment, ECF No. 41, and defendants Avila and Giardino's motion for summary judgment, ECF No. 44, are deemed timely.
4. Plaintiff shall file an opposition or statement of non-opposition to defendants' motions for summary judgment, ECF Nos. 41 & 44, within twenty-one days of this order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.


Summaries of

Sealy v. Avila

United States District Court, Eastern District of California
Jun 6, 2022
2:19-cv-01205-JAM-JDP (PC) (E.D. Cal. Jun. 6, 2022)
Case details for

Sealy v. Avila

Case Details

Full title:FLOYD SEALY, Plaintiff, v. AVILA, et al., Defendants.

Court:United States District Court, Eastern District of California

Date published: Jun 6, 2022

Citations

2:19-cv-01205-JAM-JDP (PC) (E.D. Cal. Jun. 6, 2022)