UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
October 23, 2012
M. JERICOFF, ET AL.,
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Dennis L. Beck United States Magistrate Judge
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO AMEND COMPLAINT (ECF No. 44) ORDER GRANTING EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT Opposition Deadline: November 26, 2012
Plaintiff Michael Crudup ("Plaintiff") is a prisoner in the custody of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. Plaintiff is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action is proceeding against Defendant M. Jericoff for violation of the Eighth Amendment. On March 23, 2012, Defendant filed a motion for summary judgment. On September 13, 2012, the Court ordered Plaintiff to respond to Defendant's motion for summary judgment within twenty-one days.*fn1 Pending before the Court is Plaintiff's motion for extension of time to file an amended complaint, filed October 1, 2012. ECF No. 44. On October 2, 2012, Defendant filed an opposition. ECF No. 45. The matter is submitted pursuant to Local Rule 230(l).
Plaintiff moves for an extension of time to December 26, 2012 to file an amended complaint. Defendant contends that there is no authority to permit Plaintiff's filing of an amended complaint at this late date. 2
To the extent that Plaintiff moves to file an amended complaint, Plaintiff's motion is denied.
Pursuant to the Court's Discovery and Scheduling Order, the deadline to amend pleadings was November 19, 2011. ECF No. 13. A party moving to amend a scheduling order is required to 5 demonstrate good cause. Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4). Plaintiff has not demonstrated any good cause for 6 such a late request to amend his complaint. Accordingly, the motion will be denied on those 7 grounds. 8
It appears that Plaintiff may have intended to move for an extension of time to file his opposition. To the extent that Plaintiff is moving for an extension of time to file his opposition to Defendant's motion for summary judgment, the Court finds good cause. Plaintiff contends that his facility is currently in lockdown, limiting his access to the law library. The Court will grant Plaintiff one extension of time, up to and including November 26, 2012. No further extension of time will be granted for the filing of an opposition. If Plaintiff does not timely file his opposition, the Court will construe such deficiency as a waiver of the opportunity to file an opposition.
IT IS SO ORDERED.