Opinion
1:12cv01963 LJO DLB PC
09-01-2015
MARK A. JONES, Plaintiff, v. S. NIEHUS, et al., Defendants.
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO MODIFY THE DISCOVERY AND SCHEDULING ORDER (Document 34)_
Plaintiff Mark A. Jones ("Plaintiff") is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1983. The action is proceeding on Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint for First Amendment retaliation against Defendants S. Niehus, A. Maxfield and K. Matta.
Pursuant to the February 2, 2015, Discovery and Scheduling Order, the dispositive motion deadline is August 31, 2015.
Defendants Matta and Niehus filed a motion for summary judgment based on exhaustion on June 4, 2015. The motion is pending.
On August 26, 2015, Defendants filed a motion to extend the August 31, 2015, dispositive motion deadline. The Court deems the matter suitable for decision without an opposition. Local Rule 230(l).
DISCUSSION
Modification of the pretrial scheduling order requires a showing of good cause. Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4). "The schedule may be modified 'if it cannot reasonably be met despite the diligence of the party seeking the extension.'" Zivkovic v. Southern California Edison Co., 302 F.3d 1080, 1087 (9th Cir. 2002) (quoting Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 607 (9th Cir. 1992)). "If the party seeking the modification 'was not diligent, the inquiry should end' and the motion to modify should not be granted." Id.
Here, Defendants request an extension of the August 31, 2015, dispositive motion deadline because of the pending motion for summary judgment. If the motion is granted, it will dispose of Plaintiff's claims against two of the three Defendants.
Good cause appearing, Defendants' motion is GRANTED. The Court extends the dispositive motion deadline to February 27 , 2016 . IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: September 1 , 2015
/s/ Dennis L . Beck
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE