Davis

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 GREGORY WAYNE WALTON II, No. 2:18-cv-0080 TLN DB PS 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 COUNTY OF SUTTER, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff, Gregory Walton, is proceeding in this action pro se. This matter was referred to 18 the undersigned in accordance with Local Rule 302(c)(21) and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). On 19 September 10, 2020, defendants filed a motion seeking to modifying the scheduling order issued 20 in this action. (ECF No. 63.) Specifically, defendants seek an extension of the August 14, 2020 21 deadline to file dispositive motions. (Id. at 2.) Plaintiff filed an opposition on September 25, 22 2020. (ECF No. 67.) Defendants filed a reply on October 9, 2020. (ECF No. 68.) 23 “Once a scheduling order has been filed pursuant to Rule 16, the ‘schedule may be 24 modified only for good cause and with the judge’s consent.’” Sharp v. Covenant Care LLC, 288 25 F.R.D. 465, 467 (S.D. Cal. 2012) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4)). “Unlike Rule 15(a)’s…