Kenneth Leuelu v. Paul, et al.

• Court: District Court, E.D. California
• Decided: January 14, 2026
• Docket: 1:24-cv-00031
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 KENNETH LEUELU, Case No. 1:24-cv-00031-KES-BAM 12 Plaintiff, ORDER REGARDING PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST TO DENY DEFENDANT’S 13 v. MOTION TO AMEND SCHEDULING ORDER AND ALLOW THE PARTIES 14 PAUL, et al., ADDITIONAL TIME TO FILE DISPOSITIVE MOTIONS 15 Defendants. (ECF No. 67) 16 Dispositive Motion Deadline: April 6, 2026 17 18 Plaintiff Kenneth Leuelu (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma 19 pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action proceeds against 20 Defendant Steven Paul (“Defendant”) for deliberate indifference to medical care in violation of 21 the Eighth Amendment for Defendant’s post-surgery care. 22 The Court issued a discovery and scheduling order on February 26, 2025. (ECF No. 35.) 23 That order set the deadline for filing all dispositive motions (other than a motion for summary 24 judgment for failure to exhaust) for January 5, 2026. (Id.) 25 On December 30, 2025, Defendant filed a motion to extend the deadline to file a 26 dispositive motion by three months. (ECF No. 65.) Defendant asserted that good cause existed to 27 grant the request for an extension of time because, despite Defendant’s diligence in attempting to 28 subpoena records and conduct discovery, Defendant had encountered roadblocks in identifying 1 and obtaining pertinent medical records. (Id.) Defendant explained that records were subpoenaed 2 from Kern Valley State Prison, Corcoran State Prison, Adventist Health Delano, and Adventist 3 Health Bakersfield in February 2025, but pertinent records from Plaintiff’s treatment with 4 Defendant were not obtained until December 2025. (Id. at 2.) Defendant asserted that due to the 5 inability to obtain Plaintiff’s pertinent medical records until December 2025, the defense had not 6 had adequate time to obtain a record review and declaration/report from their expert, which would 7 substantiate the basis for a dispositive motion. (Id.) Defendant further asserted that the discovery 8 process has been slowed due to Plaintiff representing himself and his being incarcerated. (Id. at 9 3.) 10 On December 31, 2025, the Court granted the motion, extending the deadline for filing all 11 dispositive motions (other than a motion for summary judgment for failure to exhaust) to April 6, 12 2026. (ECF No. 66.) The Court determined that Plaintiff would not be prejudiced by the 13 extension because no other deadlines were extended, and no additional extensions of the deadline 14 would be granted absent a demonstrated showing of good cause. (Id.) 15 Currently before the Court is Plaintiff’s request to deny Defendant’s motion for a three- 16 month extension of the dispositive motion deadline, filed January 12, 2026. (ECF No. 67.) 17 Plaintiff argues that the motion should not be granted because he believes the reasons for the 18 requested continuance are false; that is, (1) Defendant claims to have hit roadblocks in getting 19 Plaintiff’s medical records, but Plaintiff knows they already have the records from past subpoenas 20 sent to other prisons and because some of his records were in defense counsel’s possession during 21 depositions in September 2025; and (2) Defendant claims it is hard to communicate with Plaintiff 22 in prison, but Plaintiff contends Defendant’s lawyers can visit him anytime for legal reasons in 23 person, by phone, or via Zoom. (Id.) Plaintiff asks the Court to hold Defendant to the deadline, 24 noting that this case is gong on 3 years. (Id.) 25 Plaintiff’s request that the Court deny Defendant’s motion to modify the dispositive 26 motion deadline is moot. As noted, the Court granted the motion on December 31, 2025. (ECF 27 No. 66.) Insofar as Plaintiff seeks reconsideration of the Court’s order granting the extension, 28 Plaintiff has not presented grounds that would warrant reconsideration. 1 “A motion for reconsideration should not be granted, absent highly unusual 2 circumstances, unless the district court is presented with newly discovered evidence, committed 3 clear error, or if there is an intervening change in the controlling law,” Marlyn Nutraceuticals, 4 Inc. v. Mucos Pharma GmbH & Co., 571 F.3d 873, 880 (9th Cir. 2009) (internal quotations marks 5 and citations omitted), and “[a] party seeking reconsideration must show more than a 6 disagreement with the Court’s decision, and recapitulation . . .” of that which was already 7 considered by the Court in rendering its decision, U.S. v. Westlands Water Dist., 134 F. Supp. 2d 8 1111, 1131 (E.D. Cal. 2001) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Additionally, 9 pursuant to this Court’s Local Rules, when filing a motion for reconsideration of an order, a party 10 must show “what new or different facts or circumstances are claimed to exist which did not exist 11 or were not shown upon such prior motion, or what other grounds exist for the motion.” Local 12 Rule 230(j). 13 Upon review, Plaintiff has not presented new evidence or identified any error that would 14 warrant reconsideration. Plaintiff also has not identified any specific prejudice resulting from the 15 brief extension of time, nor has Plaintiff addressed Defendant’s contention that defense counsel 16 only received certain of Plaintiff’s pertinent medical records in December 2025, and did not have 17 adequate time to obtain a record review and declaration from an expert prior to the then-current 18 dispositive motion deadline. 19 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED as follows: 20 1. Plaintiff’s request to deny Defendant’s motion for a three-month extension of the 21 dispositive motion deadline, (ECF No. 67), is DENIED. 22 IT IS SO ORDERED. 23

24 Dated: January 14, 2026 /s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe _ UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 25

26 27 28