Joshua Robertson v. John Latorraca Correctional Facility, et al.

Opinion

JOSHUA ROBERTSON, Case No. 1:24-cv-00009-FRS (BAM) (PC) Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO MODIFY SCHEDULING v. ORDER

JOHN LATORRACA CORRECTIONAL (ECF No. 47) FACILITY, et al., Dispositive Motion Deadline (Exhaustion): Defendants. May 4, 2026 Plaintiff Joshua Robertson (“Plaintiff”) is a former pretrial detainee and current civil detainee proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action proceeds on Plaintiff’s second amended complaint against (1) Defendants Gutierrez, Sandoval, and Reed for Due Process violation for conditions of confinement related to cell sanitation; (2) Defendant Gutierrez for Due Process violation for conditions of confinement related to removal of the mattress; and (3) Defendants Merced County and John Latorraca Correctional Facility for Monell liability. All parties have consented to Magistrate Judge jurisdiction. (ECF No. 43.) The Court issued a discovery and scheduling order on October 6, 2025, setting the deadline for filing motions for summary judgment for failure to exhaust administrative remedies for February 6, 2026. (ECF No. 38.) Pursuant to Plaintiff’s unopposed motion to enlarge the deadline to amend the complaint, the deadline for all stipulated amendments or motions to amend is March 3, 2026. (ECF No. 45.) Currently before the Court is Defendants’ motion to modify the scheduling order, filed February 4, 2026. (ECF No. 47.) Defendants move to continue the deadline for filing motions for summary judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56 for failure to exhaust administrative remedies to 60 days after March 3, 2026, or, if Plaintiff seeks and obtains leave to amend, 60 days after Defendants file their responsive pleading. Defendants contend that due to the extension of the deadline for Plaintiff to seek amendment of the complaint, good cause exists to extend the exhaustion summary judgment motion deadline because the operative pleading may change after that date. Proceeding under the current dispositive motion deadline of February 6, 2026, would require Defendants to brief a motion for summary judgment regarding the failure to exhaust administrative remedies against a complaint that may be amended or superseded. (Id.) Plaintiff has not yet had an opportunity to file a response, but the Court finds a response is unnecessary. The motion is deemed submitted. Local Rule 230(l). Having considered the request, the Court finds good cause to grant the requested extension of the exhaustion summary judgment motion deadline. Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4). The Court finds that Plaintiff will not be prejudiced by the extension granted here. No other deadlines are extended by this order. The Court notes, however, that any motion for summary judgment raising the affirmative defense of failure to exhaust administrative remedies should also address the Court’s prior finding that, based on the information available to the Court at the screening stage indicating that Plaintiff was a civil detainee at the time the complaint was filed, Plaintiff is exempt from the PLRA’s exhaustion requirement. (ECF No. 12); Talamantes v. Leyva, 575 F.3d 1021, 1023 (9th Cir. 2009) (exhaustion requirement applies only to persons who are prisoners, as defined by the PLRA, at the time the action is filed). Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED as follows: 1. Defendants’ motion to modify the scheduling order, (ECF No. 47), is GRANTED; 2. The deadline for filing motions for summary judgment for failure to exhaust administrative remedies is extended from February 6, 2026 to May 4, 2026; 3. All other requirements set forth in the Court’s October 6, 2025 discovery and scheduling order remain in place; and 4. A request for an extension of a deadline set in this order must be filed on or before the expiration of the deadline in question and will only be granted on a showing of good cause. IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 9, 2026 /s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe _ UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE