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.

Homer Tyrone Lewis v. Derral G. Adams

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA


March 22, 2013

HOMER TYRONE LEWIS,
PLAINTIFF,
v.
DERRAL G. ADAMS, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Dennis L. Beck United States Magistrate Judge

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO MODIFY DISCOVERY AND SCHEDULING ORDER ECF No. 77 Dispositive Motion Deadline: April 15, 2013

Plaintiff Homer Tyrone Lewis ("Plaintiff") is a prisoner in the custody of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation ("CDCR"). Plaintiff is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action is proceeding on Plaintiff's first amended complaint against Defendants Adams, Junious, Lopez, and Davis for retaliation in violation of the First Amendment, and against Defendants Adams, Junious, Lopez, Davis, and Morrison for deliberate indifference to Plaintiff's safety in violation of the Eighth Amendment. On January 28, 2013, Defendants moved for modification of the Court's scheduling order. ECF No. 77. The matter is submitted pursuant to Local Rule 230(l).

The decision to modify a scheduling order is within the broad discretion of the district court. Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 607 (9th Cir. 1992) (quoting Miller v. Safeco Title Ins. Co., 758 F.2d 364, 369 (9th Cir. 1985)). Pursuant to Rule 16 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a pretrial scheduling order "shall not be modified except upon a showing of good cause," 2 and leave of court. Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4); Zivkovic v. S. Cal. Edison Co., 302 F.3d 1080, 1087-88 3 (9th Cir. 2002). Although "the existence or degree of prejudice to the party opposing the 4 modification might supply additional reasons to deny a motion, the focus of the inquiry is upon the 5 moving party's reasons for seeking modification." Johnson, 975 F.2d at 609. 6

Defendants move for a modification of the dispositive motion deadline. Defendants' counsel 7 declares that he is working on numerous other matters with pressing discovery and motions. Good 8 cause appearing, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Defendants' motion for modification of the scheduling order, filed January 28, 2013, is granted;

2. The dispositive motion deadline is April 15, 2013.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

20130322

© 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.