UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
May 2, 2012
JOHN TILTON, ET AL.,
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Sheila K. Oberto United States Magistrate Judge
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO MODIFY SCHEDULING ORDER TO EXTEND AMENDED PLEADINGS DEADLINE (Doc. 57)
Plaintiff Barry Lamon, a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on January 26, 2009. Pursuant to the scheduling order filed on September 8, 2011, the deadline to amend the pleadings was March 8, 2012. On March 30, 2012, Plaintiff filed a motion seeking to extend the deadline to June 19, 2012. *fn1 *fn2
The scheduling order placed the parties on clear notice that any request for an extension of a deadline must be filed on or before the deadline in question. Plaintiff is aware of that requirement, as he acknowledges in his motion. That the deadline slipped Plaintiff's mind, that he had other litigation projects competing for his time, and the bare, general assertion that he is in need of further discoverable information before he can determine the feasability of amendment do not establish good cause either to overlook the untimeliness of the motion or to extend the amended pleadings deadline. Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4); Zivkovic v. Southern California Edison Co., 302 F.3d 1080, 1087 (9th Cir. 2002); Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 610 (9th Cir. 1992).
The Court finds both that Plaintiff's motion is untimely and that Plaintiff failed to meet his burden as the moving party, and his motion to extend the amended pleadings deadline is therefore DENIED. Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4).
IT IS SO ORDERED.