ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST TO FILE AN AMENDED COMPLAINT/SUPPLEMENTAL PLEADING

(ECF No. 211)

I. BACKGROUND

STANLEY A. BOONE, District Judge.

Plaintiff, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed this action on July 7, 2008. Following the order addressing Defendants' motion for summary judgment on September 4, 2015, this action is proceeding on the third amended complaint, filed July 10, 2013, against Defendants Umphenour, Szalai, and Alvarez for deliberate indifference to a serious risk to Plaintiff's safety in violation of the Eighth Amendment, and against Defendant Umphenour for retaliation in violation of the First Amendment, in their individual capacities. (ECF Nos. 103, 180.) On June 2, 2016, Plaintiff filed a motion seeking leave to file an amended complaint or supplemental pleading. (ECF No. 211.) On this same date and after a hearing held on June 1, 2016, the Court issued the trial scheduling order setting the trial in this action for January 17, 2017, with a trial confirmation hearing set for December 2, 2016.1 (ECF No. 215.).

II.

LEGAL STANDARD

Rule 16 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that, once a scheduling order has issued, the schedule may be modified only for good cause. Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4). Therefore, the moving party must first demonstrate that good cause exists for the modification of the scheduling order and, if good cause is shown, the party must demonstrate that the proposed amendment is proper under Rule 15. See Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 608 (9th Cir.1992).

III.

DISCUSSION

Plaintiff seeks leave to file an amended complaint or supplement to the complaint to add Dr. Schaffenberg and Registered Nurse Mendivil as defendants in this action under Rule 15 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. However, once the scheduling order has issued in the action, amendment is governed by Rule 16 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

"Rule 16(b)'s `good cause' standard primarily considers the diligence of the party seeking the amendment. The district court may modify the pretrial schedule `if it cannot reasonably be met despite the diligence of the party seeking the extension.'" Johnson, 975 F.2d at 609 (citations omitted). Further, carelessness is insufficient to demonstrate diligence and is not a ground for relief. Id. If the party seeking to file an amended complaint does not demonstrate diligence, the inquiry should end. Id.

Plaintiff does not address the good cause standard required by Rule 16 to allow amendment of the complaint. Plaintiff states that he recently discovered the names of the individuals identified as doe defendants in his complaint. Pursuant to the most recent scheduling order, the deadline to amend the pleadings in this action was April 21, 2014, and all discovery was to be completed by June 21, 2014. (ECF No. 120.) Plaintiff has not explained why he waited more than two years after the deadline to amend the complaint and discovery in this action had closed to move to amend his complaint. Plaintiff has not shown that he was diligent in seeking to amend the scheduling order in this action.

Accordingly, the Court finds that Plaintiff has not shown good cause exists to amend the scheduling order in this instance. Plaintiff's motion for leave to file an amended complaint is denied.

IV.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff's motion for leave to file an amended complaint or supplemental pleading is HEREBY DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.