(PC) Elliott v. Hart

• Court: District Court, E.D. California
• Decided: March 22, 2024
• Docket: 2:22-cv-01496
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 CHRISTOPHER ELLIOTT, No. 2:22-cv-1496 KJN P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 R. HART, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se. On March 19, 2024, defendants filed a 18 motion for administrative relief for extension of time to file a motion for summary judgment by 19 sixty days, citing Local Rule 233. (ECF No. 31.) 20 Local Rule 233 21 It does not appear defendants’ request for extension is properly brought as a motion for 22 administrative relief under Local Rule 233: 23 Miscellaneous administrative matters which require a Court order may be brought to the Court’s attention through a motion for 24 administrative relief. Examples of matters that such motions may address include motions to exceed applicable page limitations; 25 requests to shorten time on a motion; requests to extend a response deadline; requests to alter a briefing schedule; or requests to alter a 26 discovery schedule that does not affect dispositive motion filing dates, trial dates, or the final pre-trial conference. 27 28 Local Rule 233. Defendants do not seek to alter a discovery schedule, but rather seek an 1 | extension of time to file a summary judgment motion which would require extending the 2 || dispositive motion deadline. Because the motion seeks to extend the dispositive motion deadline, 3 || such request is governed by Rule 16(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 4 | Plaintiff's Complaint 5 Plaintiff alleges that defendants R. Hart and F. Ramirez, correctional officers with the 6 || Investigative Services Unit at California State Prison, Sacramento, retaliated against plaintiff for 7 || filing grievances against them by bringing false rules violation reports against plaintiff. 8 | Governing Standards 9 “The district court is given broad discretion in supervising the pretrial phase of litigation.” 10 | Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 607 (9th Cir. 1992) (citation and internal 11 | quotation marks omitted). Rule 16(b) provides that “[a] schedule may be modified only for good 12 || cause and with the judge’s consent.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4). “The schedule may be modified 13 || ‘if it cannot reasonably be met despite the diligence of the party seeking the extension.’” 14 | Zivkovic v. Southern California Edison Co., 302 F.3d 1080, 1087 (9th Cir. 2002) (quoting 15 || Johnson, 975 F.2d at 607). 16 || Discussion 17 The undersigned is not persuaded that it would take an additional sixty days to gain 18 || authorization from the CDCR to produce documents in connection with the motion for summary 19 || judgment, and counsel did not otherwise address good cause or diligence. Therefore, defendants 20 || are granted thirty days in which to file the motion for summary judgment. 21 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 22 1. Defendants’ motion for extension (ECF No. 31) is partially granted; and 23 2. The March 22, 2024 pretrial motions deadline (ECF No. 30) is extended for thirty days 24 || from the date of this order. In all other respects, the discovery and scheduling order remains in 25 | effect. 26 | Dated: March 21, 2024 □□ / dp ai 7 CAROLYNK. DELANEY 28 setti1496.16b UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE