Quiring

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 LORENZO CASTENEDA, No. 2:21-cv-2196 DAD KJN P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 J. QUIRING, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se. On February 12, 2024, plaintiff filed a 18 motion for sixty-day extension of the pretrial motions deadline due to “Mule Creek State Prison’s 19 continuously modified programs which caused no access to the law library.” (ECF No. 61 at 1.) 20 “The district court is given broad discretion in supervising the pretrial phase of litigation.” 21 Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 607 (9th Cir. 1992) (citation and internal 22 quotation marks omitted). Rule 16(b) provides that “[a] schedule may be modified only for good 23 cause and with the judge’s consent.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4). “The schedule may be modified 24 ‘if it cannot reasonably be met despite the diligence of the party seeking the extension.’” 25 Zivkovic v. Southern California Edison Co., 302 F.3d 1080, 1087 (9th Cir.…