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.

Steven Dexter Brooks v. T. Felker

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA


March 11, 2013

STEVEN DEXTER BROOKS, PLAINTIFF,
v.
T. FELKER, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Kendall J. Newman United States Magistrate Judge

ORDER

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding without counsel. On February 6, 2013, defendants filed a motion to modify the scheduling order. Plaintiff has not filed an opposition.

"The district court is given broad discretion in supervising the pretrial phase of litigation." Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 607 (9th Cir. 1992) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). Rule 16(b) provides that "[a] schedule may be modified only for good cause and with the judge's consent." 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., 975 F.2d at 607).

On June 14, 2012, the court issued its scheduling order. On September 25, 2012, defendants were granted an extension of time in which to provide discovery responses, and the scheduling order was revised to provide the parties additional time to provide discovery and file motions to compel discovery responses, if necessary. The pretrial motions deadline was continued to February 28, 2013.

Counsel for defendants states that the previously-assigned Deputy Attorney General left the Correctional Law Section, and on January 18, 2013, the instant case was reassigned. The newly-assigned Deputy Attorney General has not had adequate time to review the pleadings and records, including three bankers boxes of discovery documents, and meet with the defendants. Despite new counsel's diligence, defendants have been unable to complete all the work in preparation of filing all pretrial and dispositive motions. Counsel for defendants avers that a motion for summary judgment would dispose of all, or most of, this case. (Dkt. No. 108-1 at 2.) Moreover, counsel declares that the evidence will show that at least three of the defendants did not have the authority to end the lockdown at issue here.

Based on counsel's declaration, the court finds good cause to extend the dispositive motions deadline. Discovery is now closed. The dispositive motions filing deadline is extended to April 29, 2013. If no timely dispositive motion is filed, the court will issue a further scheduling order.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Defendants' February 6, 2013 motion (dkt. no. 108) is granted; and

2. The dispositive motions filing deadline is extended from February 28, 2013, to April 29, 2013.

20130311

© 1992-2013 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.