(PC) Malcolm Stroud v. Pruitt

Opinion

1 2 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 4 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 5 6 MALCOLM TANDY LAMON STROUD, Case No. 1:17-cv-01659-JLT-BAM (PC) 7 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO MODIFY SCHEDULING 8 v. ORDER 9 PRUITT, et al., (ECF No. 43) 10 Defendants. 11 12 Plaintiff Malcolm Tandy Lamon Stroud, aka Treasure Stroud, (“Plaintiff”) is a state 13 prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 14 § 1983. This action proceeds on Plaintiff’s first amended complaint against Defendant Pruitt for 15 sexual abuse in violation of the Eighth Amendment and against Defendants Pruitt and Smith for 16 discrimination in violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. 17 Pursuant to the Court’s October 18, 2024 order granting Defendants’ motion to compel 18 and Defendants’ third request to modify scheduling order, the deadline for filing all dispositive 19 motions (including any second motion for summary judgment related to the availability of 20 administrative remedies) is February 18, 2025. (ECF No. 60.) On December 13, 2024, 21 Defendants filed a motion to dismiss, seeking terminating sanctions due to Plaintiff’s failure to 22 provide discovery despite the Court’s October 18, 2024 order compelling her to do so. (ECF No. 23 62.) On February 6, 2025, the undersigned issued findings and recommendations to grant 24 Defendants’ motion for terminating sanctions. (ECF No. 63.) Any objections are currently due 25 within fourteen days of service of the findings and recommendations. (Id.) 26 Currently before the Court is Defendants’ motion to modify scheduling order, filed 27 February 11, 2025. (ECF No. 64.) The current dispositive motion deadline is before the deadline 28 for filing objections to the pending findings and recommendations, which could resolve this 1 action in its entirety. To preserve their rights to file a dispositive motion should the District Judge 2 disagree with the findings and recommendations, Defendants request that the current dispositive 3 motions deadline be extended to a date no earlier than ninety days following the Court’s ruling on 4 the findings and recommendations. (Id.) 5 Plaintiff has not yet had the opportunity to file a response, but the Court finds a response 6 unnecessary and the motion is deemed submitted. Local Rule 230(l). 7 Pursuant to Rule 16(b), a scheduling order “may be modified only for good cause and 8 with the judge’s consent.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4). The “good cause” standard “primarily 9 considers the diligence of the party seeking the amendment.” Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, 10 Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 609 (9th Cir. 1992). The court may modify the scheduling order “if it cannot 11 reasonably be met despite the diligence of the party seeking the extension.” Id. If the party was 12 not diligent, the inquiry should end. Id. 13 The Court finds good cause to modify the Discovery and Scheduling Order to vacate the 14 dispositive motion deadline. The Court finds it would be an efficient use of the resources of the 15 Court and the parties to address the pending findings and recommendations prior to reaching the 16 merits of this action. Finally, the Court finds that the relief granted here will not result in 17 prejudice to Plaintiff. 18 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED as follows: 19 1. Defendants’ motion to modify scheduling order, (ECF No. 64), is GRANTED; 20 2. The February 18, 2025 dispositive motion deadline is VACATED; and 21 3. As necessary and appropriate, the Court will reset the dispositive motion deadline for no 22 less than ninety days following resolution of Defendants’ motion to dismiss. 23 IT IS SO ORDERED. 24

25 Dated: February 18, 2025 /s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe _ UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 26

27 28