Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Melvin Derell Baldwin Green, a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed this civil rights action against defendants A. Villanueva, Moua, Constillo, and Y. Castillo. The operative complaint alleges that the defendants used excessive force against him on March 12, 2026, at Mule Creek State Prison, in violation of his Eighth Amendment rights. The action was filed on March 9, 2026, in the Sacramento Division of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California, and no trial date had been set when the court issued the present order.
On July 8, 2026, the court entered a discovery and scheduling order setting November 6, 2026, as the discovery deadline and January 29, 2027, as the pretrial motions deadline. On September 8, 2026, Green filed a request to extend both deadlines by 45 days each. Defendants followed on October 29, 2026, with a motion seeking 60-day extensions of both the discovery and pretrial motions deadlines. They asked that the discovery deadline be extended for the sole purpose of allowing Green to respond to their written discovery requests and for defendants to file a motion to compel if necessary, and they requested that the dispositive motions deadline be extended to March 29, 2027.
The Court’s Holding
The court applied Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(b)(4), which provides that a schedule may be modified only for good cause and with the judge's consent, along with the Ninth Circuit's diligence-based standard articulated in Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc. and Zivkovic v. Southern California Edison Co., requiring that the schedule cannot reasonably be met despite the diligence of the party seeking the extension. The court found that Green demonstrated good cause to extend the deadlines by 45 days based on his prison's lockdown and his resulting inability to attend the law library. Thereafter, Green was moved to a different prison, and his initial draft responses to defendants' written discovery requests were misplaced. The written discovery requests were re-served on Green on October 28, 2026, and the court ordered that he respond on or before December 4, 2026.
The court separately found that defendants timely moved to extend the discovery and pretrial motions deadlines and demonstrated good cause to modify the scheduling order. At Green's deposition, plaintiff and defendants conferred, and Green did not oppose the modifications sought by defendants. The court determined that it did not appear Green would be prejudiced by the extension, considering that he himself needed additional time to respond to the written discovery requests.
The operative order granted both motions. It extended the discovery deadline to January 6, 2027, but only for the sole purpose of allowing Green to respond to defendants' written discovery requests and for defendants to file a motion to compel if necessary. The pretrial motions deadline was extended to March 29, 2027. In all other respects, the July 8, 2026 discovery and scheduling order remained in effect. The decision resolved scheduling matters only; it did not decide the excessive-force allegations or any other merits issue.
Key Takeaways
- Rule 16(b)(4) requires a showing of good cause and judicial consent before an existing litigation schedule may be modified.
- Green's prison lockdown, lack of law-library access, subsequent transfer to another prison, and misplaced draft discovery responses supported his request for additional time to respond to discovery.
- Defendants' timely motion, the parties' conference at the deposition, Green's lack of opposition, and the absence of apparent prejudice supported the defense request for schedule modification.
- The extended discovery period was narrowly limited to written-discovery responses and a possible motion to compel, rather than reopening discovery generally.
- The court left the remainder of the July 8, 2026 scheduling order unchanged and made no ruling on the underlying Eighth Amendment excessive-force claims.
Why It Matters
The order illustrates how a district court exercises its broad discretion in supervising the pretrial phase of litigation while applying Rule 16(b)'s good-cause requirement. Rather than treating the requests as automatic extensions, the court identified case-specific circumstances supporting each side's request and considered diligence, timeliness, non-opposition, and prejudice in reaching its decision.
The limited discovery extension is also practically important: the new January 6, 2027 deadline does not authorize unrestricted additional discovery. It preserves a focused opportunity for Green to answer the re-served written requests and for defendants to seek compulsion if needed, while moving the pretrial motions deadline to March 29, 2027 and leaving the merits of the constitutional dispute unresolved.