Eddie Samaniego v. Jesus Morfin, Correctional Officer
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Michelle M. Pettit (author)
Analysis
The court reviewed a pro se plaintiff's ex parte motion for a continuance of a summary judgment hearing and a request to amend the complaint. The court construed the motion as a request for an extension of time under Rule 56(d) and a motion to amend the scheduling order under Rule 16, and set a briefing schedule for the defendant to oppose these requests.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Motion for continuance/extension of time and motion to amend scheduling order construed and briefing schedule set“For good cause, the Court SETS the following briefing schedule: 1. Defendant shall file an opposition to Plaintiff's motion no later than March 2026.” | agree with court The court correctly identified that a pro se litigant's request for time to obtain evidence for summary judgment is properly construed as a Rule 56(d) motion, and a request to file an amended complaint after the deadline is a motion to modify the scheduling order under Rule 16. Setting a briefing schedule for the opposing party to respond is the standard procedural mechanism for resolving such motions. The court did not grant or deny the underlying requests but preserved the parties' ability to be heard on them. |
The order itself: sound — The order is procedurally sound. It correctly applies the liberal construction standard for pro se filings to identify the proper procedural vehicles (Rule 56(d) and Rule 16) for the plaintiff's requests. It does not prematurely rule on the merits of the continuance or amendment but sets a schedule for the defendant to oppose, which is the appropriate next step. The order notes that the scheduling order amendment will be handled separately, which is consistent with Rule 16(b) requiring a separate order for scheduling changes.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 7 8 EDDIE SAMANIEGO, Case No.: 24-cv-01442-TWR-MMP CDCR #BG-7502, 9 ORDER SETTING BRIEFING Plaintiff, 10 SCHEDULE ON PLAINTIFF’S v. MOTION FOR CONTINUANCE 11 JESUS MORFIN, Correctional Officer, 12 [ECF No. 29] Defendant. 13 14 15 On March 6, 2026, pro se Plaintiff Eddie Samaniego (“Plaintiff”) filed an ex parte 16 motion for continuance, requesting to continue the March 26, 2026 hearing on Defendant’s 17 Motion for Summary Judgment. ECF No. 29 at 1. Plaintiff argues he needs video footage, 18 which he requested January 15, 2026 from the California Department of Corrections and 19 Rehabilitation, in order prepare his opposition. Id. at 5, 11. The Court liberally construes 20 this as a request for an extension of time to file an opposition to Defendant’s motion for 21 summary judgment because “facts are unavailable to the nonmovant” under Federal Rule 22 of Civil Procedure (“Rule”) 56(d). See Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (“A 23 document filed pro se is ‘to be liberally construed.’”) (citation omitted). 24 Additionally, Plaintiff argues the video footage he seeks will “allow [Plaintiff] to 25 amend [his] complaint” with claims of “retaliation” and “unnecessary use of force causing 26 physical and emotional injuries.” ECF No. 29 at 5. The Court set the Scheduling Order on 27 28 1 || April 11, 2025.1 ECF No. 17. The Scheduling Order sets the motion to amend cutoff for 2 ||May 16, 2025. fd. at 1. 3 The Court liberally construes Plaintiff's request to amend his complaint as a motion 4 ||to amend the Scheduling Order under Rule 16 to permit filing an amended complaint. /d. 5 11; Erickson, 551 US. at 94. 6 For good cause, the Court SETS the following briefing schedule: 7 1. Defendant shall file an opposition to Plaintiff's motion no later than March 8 2026. In Defendant’s opposition, he shall respond to: 9 a. Plaintiff's extension of time request under Rule 56(d) and 10 b. Plaintiff's request to amend the Scheduling Order to permit filing an 11 amended complaint. 12 2. Plaintiff may file a reply to Defendant’s opposition no later than April 20, 13 ||2026. 14 The above briefing schedule requires an amendment to the Scheduling Order related 15 || to Pretrial Conference dates, which the Court will issue by separate order. Unless otherwise 16 |/ordered by the Court, the Court will take the matter under submission pursuant to Civil 17 || Local Rule 7.1(d)(1) and the undersigned’s Civil Chambers Rule X(F). 18 IT IS SO ORDERED. 19 Dated: March 16, 2026 Wy bole th. □□□ 0 HON. MICHELLE M. PETTIT United States Magistrate Judge 22 23 24 25 27 ||| The Court amended the Scheduling Order dates for Expert Disclosure and Discovery. ECF No. 23. All other deadlines, including the deadline to amend pleadings, remained in effect. Id. at 5.