(PC) Ramsey v. Dickerson

Opinion

1 2

6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9 DAVID BRANDON RAMSEY, 1:19-cv-00666-DAD-GSA-PC

10 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO MODIFY SCHEDULING 11 vs. ORDER RE EXHAUSTION MOTION (ECF No. 34.) 12 C/O A. DICKERSON, et al., ORDER EXTENDING DEADLINE FOR 13 Defendants. FILING OF EXHAUSTION MOTIONS

14 New Deadline for Filing Exhaustion Motions:

15 February 26, 2022

16 17 I. BACKGROUND 18 David Brandon Ramsey (“Plaintiff”) is a prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma 19 pauperis with this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This case now proceeds with 20 Plaintiff’s claims against defendants Sergeant A. Jimenez, C/O A. Dickerson, C/O S. Borlina, 21 and C/O J. Santiago for use of excessive force and denial of medical care in violation of the 22 Eighth Amendment.1 23 II. MOTION TO MODIFY SCHEDULING ORDER 24 Modification of a scheduling order requires a showing of good cause, Fed. R. Civ. P. 25 16(b), and good cause requires a showing of due diligence, Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, 26 Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 609 (9th Cir. 1992). To establish good cause, the party seeking the 27 28 1 On June 24, 2021, the court dismissed all other claims and defendants from this case, based on Plaintiff’s failure to state a claim. (ECF No. 23.) 1 modification of a scheduling order must generally show that even with the exercise of due 2 diligence, they cannot meet the requirement of the order. Id. The Court may also consider the 3 prejudice to the party opposing the modification. Id. If the party seeking to amend the scheduling 4 order fails to show due diligence the inquiry should end and the Court should not grant the motion 5 to modify. Zivkovic v. Southern California Edison, Co., 302 F.3d 1080, 1087 (9th Cir. 2002). 6 Defendants request a thirty-day extension of the deadline for filing exhaustion motions 7 up to and including February 26, 2022. The current deadline established by the court’s Discovery 8 and Scheduling Order, which was issued on October 27, 2021, is January 27, 2022. (ECF No. 9 32.) Defendants argue that they require an extension of the deadline because they have made 10 multiple requests but have not received the relevant inmate appeal needed to prepare their 11 exhaustion motion 12 The court finds good cause to extend the deadline in the court’s scheduling order for filing 13 exhaustion motions. 14 III. CONCLUSION 15 Based on the foregoing, and good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 16 1. Defendants’ motion to modify the court’s scheduling order, filed on January 14, 17 2022, is granted; 18 2. The deadline for filing exhaustion motions is extended from January 27, 2022 to 19 February 26, 2022; and 20 3. All other provisions of the court’s October 27, 2021, discovery and scheduling 21 order remain the same. 22 IT IS SO ORDERED. 23

24 Dated: January 18, 2022 /s/ Gary S. Austin UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 25

26 27 28