Samaniego v. Morfin

1
24-cv-01442-TWR-MMP
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
EDDIE SAMANIEGO,
CDCR #BG-7502,
Plaintiff,
v.
JESUS MORFIN, Correctional Officer,
Defendant.
Case No.: 24-cv-01442-TWR-MMP
ORDER SETTING BRIEFING
SCHEDULE ON PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION FOR CONTINUANCE
[ECF No. 29]
On March 6, 2026, pro se Plaintiff Eddie Samaniego (“Plaintiff”) filed an ex parte
motion for continuance, requesting to continue the March 26, 2026 hearing on Defendant’s
Motion for Summary Judgment. ECF No. 29 at 1. Plaintiff argues he needs video footage,
which he requested January 15, 2026 from the California Department of Corrections and
Rehabilitation, in order prepare his opposition. Id. at 5, 11. The Court liberally construes
this as a request for an extension of time to file an opposition to Defendant’s motion for
summary judgment because “facts are unavailable to the nonmovant” under Federal Rule
of Civil Procedure (“Rule”) 56(d). See Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (“A
document filed pro se is ‘to be liberally construed.’”) (citation omitted).
Additionally, Plaintiff argues the video footage he seeks will “allow [Plaintiff] to
amend [his] complaint” with claims of “retaliation” and “unnecessary use of force causing
physical and emotional injuries.” ECF No. 29 at 5. The Court set the Scheduling Order on
Case 3:24-cv-01442-TWR-MMP Document 30 Filed 03/16/26 PageID.<pageID>
Page 1 of 2

2
24-cv-01442-TWR-MMP
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
April 11, 2025.1 ECF No. 17. The Scheduling Order sets the motion to amend cutoff for
May 16, 2025. Id. at 1.
The Court liberally construes Plaintiff’s request to amend his complaint as a motion
to amend the Scheduling Order under Rule 16 to permit filing an amended complaint. Id.
at 11; Erickson, 551 U.S. at 94.
For good cause, the Court SETS the following briefing schedule:
1. 	Defendant shall file an opposition to Plaintiff’s motion no later than March
30, 2026. In Defendant’s opposition, he shall respond to:
a. 	Plaintiff’s extension of time request under Rule 56(d) and
b. 	Plaintiff’s request to amend the Scheduling Order to permit filing an
amended complaint.
2. 	Plaintiff may file a reply to Defendant’s opposition no later than April 20,
2026.
The above briefing schedule requires an amendment to the Scheduling Order related
to Pretrial Conference dates, which the Court will issue by separate order. Unless otherwise
ordered by the Court, the Court will take the matter under submission pursuant to Civil
Local Rule 7.1(d)(1) and the undersigned’s Civil Chambers Rule X(F).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: March 16, 2026 	_____________________________________________
HON. MICHELLE M. PETTIT
United States Magistrate Judge
1 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.
Case 3:24-cv-01442-TWR-MMP Document 30 Filed 03/16/26 PageID.<pageID>
Page 2 of 2