(PC) Cage v. Johnson

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JIM CAGE, Case No.: 1:22-cv-01429-CDB (PC) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO EXTEND THE DEADLINE 13 v. FOR THE FILING OF A DISPOSITIVE MOTION 14 A. JOHNSON, et al., (Doc. 35) 15 Defendants.

17 Plaintiff Jim Cage is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action 18 pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action proceeds on Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment excessive 19 force claim against Defendant Rojas. 20 I. INTRODUCTION 21 The Court issued its Discovery and Scheduling Order on January 25, 2024. (Doc. 26.) 22 Relevant here, the deadline for the filing of any dispositive motion was set for December 5, 2024. 23 (Id.) 24 On December 2, 2024, Defendant filed an “Ex Parte Motion for Extension of Time to File 25 Motion for Dispositive Motion.” (Doc. 35.) Defendant seeks a 21-day extension of the dispositive 26 motion filing deadline. (Id.) 27 // 1 I. DISCUSSION 2 Pursuant to Rule 16(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a scheduling order “may 3 | be modified only for good cause and with the judge's consent.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4). This 4 | good cause standard “primarily considers the diligence of the party seeking the amendment.” 5 | Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 609 (9th Cir. 1992). The court may modify 6 | the scheduling order “if it cannot reasonably be met despite the diligence of the party seeking the 7 | extension.” Jd. If the party was not diligent, the inquiry should end. Jd. 8 Here, defense counsel Isha Vazirani attests that the litigation coordinator at California 9 | State Prison-Corcoran was contacted on November 26, 2024, concerning Vazirani’s request for 10 | assistance with scheduling meetings with employee witnesses and to discuss and finalize 11 | declarations in support of a motion for summary judgment on the merits of Plaintiffs claims. 12 | (Doc. 35 at 3, § 2.) Vazirani declares that as of December 2, 2024, and despite “following up,” 13 | there has been no response from the litigation coordinator. (/d.) Defense counsel notes that in 14 | light of the recent holiday it is likely “many staff members have been away from work and thus 15 | difficult to reach.” (/d.) Vazirani declares the witness declarations are essential to support the 16 | summary judgment motion and to provide important context concerning the issues. (/d., §] 4.) 17 | Counsel states this is Defendant’s first request for an extension of time, and it is not made for the 18 | purpose of harassment, undue delay, or any other improper purpose. (/d., {| 3, 4.) 19 I. CONCLUSION AND ORDER 20 Accordingly, and for good cause shown, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 21 1. Defendant’s request for a 21-day extension of time within which to file a motion for 22 summary judgment (Doc. 35) is GRANTED; 23 2. The deadline for filing a dispositive motion is extended from December 5, 2024, to 24 December 26, 2024. 95 | IT ISSO ORDERED. 26 Dated: _ December 3, 2024 | ) Ww Vv KD 4 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE