Jason Erik Schmaus v. K.M. Aye

• Court: District Court, E.D. California
• Decided: January 6, 2026
• Docket: 1:23-cv-01125
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JASON ERIK SCHMAUS, No. 1:23-cv-01125-JLT-SAB (PC) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO AMEND THE COMPLAINT 13 v. (ECF No. 47) 14 K.M. AYE,

15 Defendant. 16 17 Plaintiff is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this action filed pursuant to 42 18 U.S.C. § 1983. 19 Currently before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion to amend, filed December 29, 2025. 20 I. 21 DISCUSSION 22 Plaintiff seeks to amend the complaint and states it “would be based upon the same 23 general state of facts as the original complaint.” (ECF No. 47.) 24 As an initial matter, Plaintiff did not file a proposed amended complaint with his motion 25 to amend. Because Plaintiff did not submit a proposed amended complaint, the Court is unable to 26 evaluate it. On this ground, alone, Plaintiff’s motion to amend should be denied. See King v. 27 Villegas, 2019 WL 5536266, at *2 (E.D. Cal. Oct. 25, 2019) (denying motion to file amended 28 complaint based on plaintiff’s failure to submit proposed amended complaint). 1 In addition, Plaintiff has also failed to demonstrate good cause under Federal Rules of 2 Civil Procedure 16, amendment of the scheduling order. Because Plaintiff’s motion to amend 3 was filed after the Court issued a discovery and scheduling order, Rule 16’s standards now 4 control. See Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 607-08 (9th Cir. 1992) 5 (evaluating under Rule 16 motion for leave to amend filed after issuance of pretrial scheduling 6 order). In pertinent part, Rule 16 provides that a scheduling order “may be modified only for good 7 cause and with the judge’s consent.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4). Thus, Plaintiff’s ability to amend 8 his complaint is governed by Rule 16(b), not Rule 15(a). See Forstmann v. Culp, 114 F.R.D. 83, 9 85 (M.D.N.C. 1987) (party seeking to amend pleading after date specified in scheduling order 10 must first show “good cause” for amendment under Rule 16(b), then, if “good cause” be shown, 11 the party must demonstrate that amendment was proper under Rule 15); see also Financial 12 Holding Corp. v. Garnac Grain Co., 127 F.R.D. 165, 166 (W.D. Mo. 1989) (same). 13 “A court’s evaluation of good cause is not coextensive with an inquiry into the propriety 14 of the amendment under ...Rule 15.” Forstmann, 114 F.R.D. at 85. Unlike Rule 15(a)’s liberal 15 amendment policy which focuses on the bad faith of the party seeking to interpose an amendment 16 and the prejudice to the opposing party, Rule 16(b)’s “good cause” standard primarily considers 17 the diligence of the party seeking the amendment. The district court may modify the pretrial 18 schedule “if it cannot reasonably be met despite the diligence of the party seeking the extension.” 19 Fed. R. Civ. P. 16 advisory committee” notes (1983 amendment); Harrison Beverage Co. v. 20 Dribeck Importers, Inc., 133 F.R.D. 463, 469 (D.N.J. 1990); Amcast Indus. Corp. v. Detrex 21 Corp., 132 F.R.D. 213, 217 (N.D. Ind. 1990); Forstmann, 114 F.R.D. at 85. 22 Here, the deadline to amend the pleadings expired on June 18, 2025. (ECF No. 46 at 1.) 23 Plaintiff provides no explanation as to why he failed to seek to amend the complaint by the 24 deadline provided in the discovery and scheduling order. Indeed, this case was filed over two 25 years ago, Plaintiff has amended his complaint once already, and the parties have been engaged in 26 discovery since March 2025. Indeed, discovery closed on November 18, 2025. (ECF No. 46.) 27 Because Plaintiff’s motion does not address the critical question in evaluating a motion to amend 28 under Rule 16: why he was unable to file his motion within the deadline prescribed by the Court’s 1 | March 18, 2025 discovery and scheduling order. Plaintiff has failed to explain the lengthy delay 2 | and therefore failed to demonstrate diligence and good cause to amend his complaint. 3 A scheduling order “is not a frivolous piece of paper, idly entered, which can be cavalierly 4 | disregarded by counsel without peril.” Johnson, 975 F.2d at 610 (quoting Gestetner Corp. v. Case 5 | Equipment Co., 108 F.R.D. 138, 141 (D. Me. 1985)). Plaintiff’ss disregard of the Court’s 6 | scheduling orders “undermine[s] the court’s ability to control its docket, disrupt[s] the agreed- 7 | upon course of the litigation, and reward[s] the indolent and the cavalier.” Johnson, 975 F.2d at 8 | 610; see also Riofrio Anda v. Ralston Purina Co., 959 F.2d 1149, 1155 (1st Cir. 1992) (permitting 9 | amendment under Rule 15(a) in violation of district court scheduling order “would have nullified 10 | the purpose of Rule 16(b)(1)”). Accordingly, Plaintiff's motion to amend shall be denied. 11 Il. 12 ORDER 13 Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff's motion to amend the 14 | complaint is DENIED. 15 16 IT IS SO ORDERED. DAA Le 17 | Dated: _ January 5, 2026_ eS STANLEY A. BOONE 18 United States Magistrate Judge 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28