(PC) Felix v. Cazores

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 TYLO JEROME FELIX, JR., Case No.: 1:24-cv-00332-JLT-SKO 12 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ SECOND MOTION TO MODIFY THE 13 v. DISCOVERY AND SCHEDULING ORDER 14 C. CAZORES, et al., (Doc. 22) 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff Tylo Jerome Felix, Jr. is proceeding pro se in this civil rights action pursuant to 18 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action proceeds on Plaintiff’s constitutional claims against Defendants 19 Cazores, Smotherman, Diaz, Velasquez, and Arreazola. 20 I. BACKGROUND 21 The Court issued its Discovery and Scheduling Order on August 23, 2024. (Doc. 17.) The 22 deadline for the filing of a motion for summary judgment based upon a failure to exhaust 23 administrative remedies was set for November 23, 2024. (Id.) 24 On November 14, 2024, Defendants filed a “Motion to Modify Scheduling Order to 25 Extend Deadline to File Motion Challenging Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies.” (Doc. 19.) 26 The Court granted the motion on November 20, 2024, extending the deadline for filing an 27 exhaustion motion to December 23, 2024. (Id. at 2.) On December 9, 2024, Defendants filed a second motion to modify the scheduling order. (Doc. 22.) 1 II. 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.” Id. If the party was not diligent, the inquiry should end. Id. 8 Defendants move for a 14-day extension of the deadline for filing a motion for summary 9 judgment based upon a failure to exhaust administrative remedies. (Doc. 22.) The motion is 10 supported by the Declaration of Nasstaran Ruhparwar, a Deputy Attorney General at the 11 California Attorney General’s Office. (Id. at 6.) The Declaration states that defense counsel 12 Ruhparwar was assigned this matter on November 15, 2024, following the unexpected and 13 extended medical leave of the primary attorney. (Doc. 22 at 3-4 & 6, ¶ 2.) While preparing an 14 exhaustion motion that included declarations from the grievance coordinator at the Substance 15 Abuse Treatment Facility and the Chief of the Office of Appeals, Counsel encountered delays 16 resulting in the need for additional time to prepare the motion. (Id., ¶¶ 4, 6, 7.) The draft 17 declaration was provided to the Chief of the Office of Appeals on December 4, 2024, and the 18 review process generally takes three weeks. (Id., ¶¶ 4,6.). (Id., ¶ 7.) 19 Defendants have established good cause for a 14-day extension of the deadline for the 20 filing of a motion for summary judgment based upon a failure to exhaust administrative remedies. 21 III. CONCLUSION AND ORDER 22 Accordingly, and for good cause shown, the Court ORDERS that: 23 1. Defendants’ motion to modify the scheduling order (Doc. 22) is GRANTED; and 24 2. The Discovery and Scheduling Order is MODIFIED to extend the deadline for filing 25 a motion for summary judgment based upon a failure to exhaust administrative 26 remedies from December 23, 2024, to January 6, 2025. 27 IT IS SO ORDERED. 1 Dated: December 10, 2024 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto . 2 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27