IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
March 20, 2013
DAVID SMITH, PLAINTIFF,
D. LETOURNEAU, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.
Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding without counsel in an action brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He moves to modify the March 4, 2013 Discovery & Scheduling Order on the grounds that he anticipates being paroled on April 13, 2013, and thereafter finding counsel to assist him with this case. Dckt. No. 32. 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 v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 609 (9th Cir. 1992). Here, the only deadline set by the schedule that precedes plaintiff's anticipated parole date is the April 3, 2013 deadline for serving requests for written discovery. See Dckt. No. 30 at 4. The fact that plaintiff may be paroled shortly thereafter, and may then retain counsel does not prevent plaintiff from complying with that deadline. Thus, plaintiff fails to show the requisite good cause for modification of the scheduling order.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff's motion to modify the March 4, 2013 Discovery & Scheduling Order (Dckt. No. 32) is denied.
© 1992-2013 VersusLaw Inc.