Rademaker

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA David RADEMAKER, Case No.: 18-cv-1831-WQH-AGS Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S

REQUEST FOR EXTENSION (ECF

v. No. 43) J. JUAREZ, et al., Defendants. 15 In his motion for injunctive relief, plaintiff also requests an extension to the scheduling order. (ECF No. 43, at 7.) The requested extension is DENIED. Plaintiff David Rademaker, a state inmate proceeding pro se, requests additional time to achieve mental stability to litigate his ongoing cases. But this Court previously granted an extension for this same reason following Rademaker’s hospitalization. (See ECF No. 41.) A scheduling order “may be modified only for good cause and with the judge’s consent.” Fed R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4). Good cause exists if the scheduling order “cannot reasonably be met despite the diligence of the party seeking the extension.” Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 609 (9th Cir. 1992). The court “is given broad 25 …