IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
February 26, 2013
DANIEL CRUZ, PLAINTIFF,
MICHAELS, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.
Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding without counsel in an action brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action proceeds on the January 24, 2011 amended complaint on plaintiff's Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference to medical needs claims against defendants Reynolds, Clark, and Mallet, and his excessive force claims against defendant Brown. See Complaint (Dckt. No. 21); March 13, 2012 Order (Dckt. No. 48). On January 15, 2013, the court issued an amended scheduling order, providing that, absent good cause, no further amendments to the complaint would be permitted. Dckt. No. 57 (citing Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 609 (9th Cir. 1992)). Plaintiff now seeks leave to add a retaliation claim to his complaint. Dckt. No. 58.
A scheduling order may be modified upon a showing of good cause. Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b). Good cause exists when the moving party demonstrates he cannot meet the deadline despite exercising due diligence. Johnson, 975 F.2d at 609. According to plaintiff, "the underlying facts and evidence" supporting his proposed retaliation claim "have been visible from the genesis of these proceedings." Dckt. No. 58 at 5. Nevertheless, plaintiff apparently neglected to allege a retaliation claim earlier because he is not experienced in the law. Id. Plaintiff's inexperience with the law, however, does not justify modification of the scheduling order. Plaintiff is required to comply with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Local Rules of the Eastern District of California. See McNeil v. United States, 508 U.S. 106, 113 (1993) (procedural requirements apply to all litigants, including prisoners lacking access to counsel); L.R. 183(a) ("Any individual representing himself or herself without an attorney is bound by the Federal Rules of Civil or Criminal Procedure, these Rules, and all other applicable law."). Because the deadline for amending the complaint has passed, and because plaintiff fails to demonstrate good cause to modify the schedule, plaintiff's motion to amend the complaint must be denied.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff's motion to amend his complaint (Dckt. No. 58) is denied.
© 1992-2013 VersusLaw Inc.