Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Ransom v. Martinez

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA


October 18, 2010

BRYAN E. RANSOM, PLAINTIFF,
v.
J. MARTINEZ, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Dennis L. Beck United States Magistrate Judge

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO MODIFY SCHEDULING ORDER

(DOCS. 36, 38)

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE DISPOSITIVE MOTION

(DOC. 49)

Plaintiff Bryan E. Ransom ("Plaintiff") is a prisoner in the custody of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation ("CDCR"). Plaintiff is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Pending before the Court is Plaintiff's second motion to modify the scheduling order, filed July 29, 2010, and Defendants' motion for extension of time to file a dispositive motion, filed October 4, 2010. Defendants filed an opposition to Plaintiff's motion.

Plaintiff requests an additional sixty-day extension of time for the various scheduling deadlines, including the deadline to amend pleadings, conduct discovery, and file dispositive motions. A modification of a scheduling order requires a showing of good cause. Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4). Defendants contend no good cause exists, as Plaintiff's delay has been due to his litigation of other lawsuits. (Opp'n 3:14-4:19.) Defendants also contend prejudicial effect if Plaintiff is allowed to amend his complaint now. (Id.)

Plaintiff has not demonstrated due diligence for amending the pleadings. The deadline to amend pleadings was June 7, 2010. (Doc. 33.) Plaintiff's motion is untimely regarding that deadline. Accordingly, Plaintiff's request is denied.

The discovery cut-off deadline was August 9, 2010. Plaintiff contends that he needs additional time because he suffers from Hepatitis C which causes him great pain on occasion, and Plaintiff was unable to obtain assistance. The Court will also deny an extension of time for this deadline. Plaintiff has not demonstrated due diligence regarding an extension as to the discovery cut-off date. Plaintiff was aware since March 11, 2010 that the discovery cut-off date was August 9, 2010. Plaintiff thus had nearly five months of time to conduct discovery in this action. Accordingly, Plaintiff's request is denied.

Plaintiff also requests an extension of time to the dispositive motion deadline. Defendants filed their own separate request for an extension. The dispositive motion deadline is October 18, 2010. Defendants contend that they require an additional sixty days after the Court has adjudicated their pending motion to revoke Plaintiff's in forma pauperis status. The Court finds such an extension appropriate for both parties. Accordingly, Plaintiff and Defendants' request is GRANTED. Both parties will receive an extension of sixty days after the adjudication of Defendants' motion to revoke in forma pauperis status to file a dispositive motion, if necessary.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

20101018

© 1992-2010 VersusLaw Inc.



Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.