(PC) Christian v. CDCR

8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 SACRAMENTO DIVISION EARL DEAN CHRISTIAN, JR., 2:21-cv-00305-KJN Plaintiff, [PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING 14 DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR v. EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE 15 PRE-ANSWER MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT H. MACIAS, et al., (EXHAUSTION) 17 Defendants.

19 Plaintiff is a state prisoner, proceeding through counsel. On November 23, 2022, defendants filed a motion for extension of time to file their motion for summary judgment on exhaustion grounds. Plaintiff does not oppose the extension.

22 “The district court is given broad discretion in supervising the pretrial phase of litigation.”

23 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.’”

27 Zivkovic v. Southern California Edison Co., 302 F.3d 1080, 1087 (9th Cir. 2002) (quoting 28 Johnson, 975 F.2d at 607). ] Good cause appearing, defendants’ motion is granted.

2 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 3 1. Defendants’ motion (ECF No. 49) is granted; and 4 2. Defendants shall file their motion for summary judgment three weeks from the date of || this order. Thirty days thereafter, plaintiff shall file his opposition. Defendants’ reply, if any, || shall be filed fifteen days after the filing of plaintiff's opposition.

7 || Dated: December 1, 2022 Foci) Aharon 9 KENDALL J. NE /ow/chri0305.ext UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 1]