Loadholt

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 ANTHONY L. PATTON, No. 2: 19-cv-0451 KJM KJN P Plaintiff, v. ORDER F.N.P. LOADHOLT, et al., Defendants. 16 Introduction Plaintiff is a state prisoner, proceeding without counsel, with a civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Pending before the court is plaintiff’s motion for additional discovery filed October 13, 2020, pursuant to the mailbox rule. (ECF No. 84.) Discovery closed on October 2, 2020. (See ECF No. 40.) The undersigned construes plaintiff’s motion for additional discovery as a motion to reopen discovery. For the reasons stated herein, plaintiff’s motion is denied. Legal Standard To reopen discovery, the moving party must show good cause, which in turn requires a showing of diligence. Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 608-09 (9th Cir. 1992). If the moving party has not acted with diligence in pursuing discovery, he has failed to show good cause to reopen…