ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT'S RENEWED MOTION TO MODIFY SCHEDULING ORDER

(ECF NO. 106)

ERICA P. GROSJEAN, Magistrate Judge.

Jerry Dillingham ("Plaintiff") is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

On March 13, 2020, Defendant filed a renewed motion to modify the scheduling order. (ECF No. 106). Defendant points out that "[i]t is now within twenty-one days of the dispositive motion deadline (ECF No. 75), and the District Court has not yet ruled on the findings and recommendations dated December 4, 2019." (ECF No. 106, p. 2). Defendant argues that "[g]ood cause exists to grant Defendant's renewed motion to modify the scheduling order, because the pleadings are still unresolved. Preparing and filing a dispositive motion by the current deadline is premature. It serves judicial economy to modify the scheduling order at this juncture, because, otherwise, proceeding with the current schedule would unnecessarily complicate the procedural posture and prejudice Defendant." (Id.). Defendant asks the Court "to modify the scheduling order and requests that the Court modify the dispositive motion deadline to a date after the District Court issues a ruling on the findings and recommendations." (Id.).

The Court finds good cause to grant Defendant's motion. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that the parties have thirty days from the date of the assigned district judge's order on the findings and recommendations dated December 4, 2019, to file dispositive motions.

The Court notes that it is not modifying any other deadlines at this time. Either party may move for modification of the remaining deadlines if it becomes necessary.

IT IS SO ORDERED.