Orcasitas v. Ko

• Court: District Court, S.D. California
• Decided: March 22, 2022
• Docket: 3:21-cv-00143
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JOE TOMAS ORCASITAS, JR., Case No.: 21cv143-MMA(RBB) CDCR #J-36909, 12 ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S Plaintiff, 13 MOTION TO MODIFY v. SCHEDULING ORDER [ECF NO. 29] 14 DOCTOR KO, M.D., 15 Defendant. 16

17 I. INTRODUCTION 18 Plaintiff Joe Tomas Orcasitas, Jr., a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma 19 pauperis, alleges civil rights violations pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Defendant 20 Doctor Ko, M.D. On March 9, 2022, Plaintiff filed a document entitled, “Request of 21 Plaintiff to [Amend] Complaint Prior to Discovery,” in which he seeks a fourteen-day 22 extension of time to file a motion for leave to amend his complaint [ECF No. 29]. The 23 Court construes the request as a Motion to Modify Scheduling Order based on the 24 substance of the filing. Defendant Ko similarly construed Plaintiff’s motion and filed an 25 Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion for Extension of Time to File Amended Complaint on 26 March 18, 2022 [ECF No. 30]. For the following reasons, Plaintiff’s motion to modify 27 the scheduling order is GRANTED. 28 1 II. LEGAL STANDARDS 2 The scheduling order issued by the court is required to limit the time to join other 3 parties, amend the pleadings, complete discovery, and file motions. Fed. R. Civ. P. 4 16(b)(3)(A). The schedule may be modified only for good cause and with the judge's 5 consent. Id. R. 16(b)(4). The "'good cause" standard under Rule 16(b) "primarily 6 considers the diligence of the party seeking the amendment." Johnson v. Mammoth 7 Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 609 (9th Cir. 1992); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 16 advisory 8 committee notes to 1983 Amendment ("[T]he court may modify the schedule on a 9 showing of good cause if it cannot reasonably be met despite the diligence of the party 10 seeking the extension."). The focus of the inquiry is on the moving party's reasons for 11 seeking modification. Johnson, 975 F.2d at 609. "If that party was not diligent, the 12 inquiry should end" and the motion to modify should not be granted. Id. 13 III. DISCUSSION 14 On January 12, 2022, the Court issued a Scheduling Order Regulating Discovery 15 and Other Pre-trial Proceedings setting March 11, 2022, as the deadline to join other 16 parties, amend the pleadings, or file additional pleadings. (Order 1, Jan. 12, 2022, ECF 17 No. 26.) Plaintiff filed the current motion on March 9, 2022, seeking a fourteen-day 18 extension until March 25, 2022, to file a motion for leave to amend his complaint. (Pl.’s 19 Mot 1, ECF No. 29.) He explains that he received an MRI of his knee on February 28, 20 2022, and needs to confer with the attending physician at the prison “[i]n order to amend 21 [his] complaint properly.” (Id.) Defendant Ko argues that “Plaintiff requests additional 22 time to move for leave to amend his complaint because of what he hopes to learn at an 23 upcoming physician’s appointment,” and that at best, his motion is premature. (Def.’s 24 Opp’n 2, ECF No. 30.) He contends further that the “sole focus” of Orcasitas’s claim is 25 Defendant’s decision to not order an MRI in 2019 and that current MRI results “are not a 26 reliable indicator of the condition of [Plaintiff’s] knee in 2019.” (Id. at 2-3.) 27 The "'good cause" standard under Rule 16(b) "primarily considers the diligence of 28 the party seeking the amendment." Johnson, 975 F.2d at 609. Orcasitas filed his request | || for an extension prior to the current deadline to file a motion for leave to amend the 2 || complaint, and based on the recency of his knee MRI, acted with sufficient diligence in 3 ||doing so. While the basis for Plaintiff's proposed amended complaint, as presented in his 4 ||current motion, is not completely clear to the Court, Plaintiff has acted with sufficient 5 || diligence to warrant a granting of his request for an extension, and Defendant’s 6 || arguments against Plaintiff's request for an extension are more properly considered in 7 ||connection with a motion for leave to amend. Accordingly, Plaintiff's motion for an 8 extension to March 25, 2022, to file a motion for leave to amend his complaint is 9 || GRANTED. 10 Having granted Plaintiff's motion for an extension, the Court advises Plaintiff that 11 he decides to proceed with filing a motion for leave to file an amended complaint, he 12 abide by the Court’s local rules governing amended pleadings. Importantly, an 13 |}amended complaint “must be complete in itself without reference to the superseded 14 || pleading,” and “[a]ll amended pleadings must contain copies of all exhibits referred to in 15 amended pleadings.” S.D. Cal. Civ. L.R. 15.1(a). Additionally, “Any motion to 16 |}amend a pleading must be accompanied by . . . a copy of the proposed amended 17 pleading.” Id. R. 15.1(b). 18 IT IS SO ORDERED. 19 909 || Dated: March 22, 2022 | 2 21 Hon. Ruben B. Brooks 22 United States Magistrate Judge 23 24 25 26 27 28