Steve J.Noble v. Gonzalez

Filing 52

ORDER denying 51 Motion to Stay and granting plaintiff extension of time to file opposition to motion for summary judgment signed by Magistrate Judge Gary S. Austin on 7/2/2013. Filing Deadline: 9/4/2013(Lundstrom, T)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 STEVEN JOSEPH NOBLE IV, 12 ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S RULE 56 MOTION FOR STAY, WITHOUT PREJUDICE (Doc. 51.) Plaintiff, 13 14 1:07-cv-01111-LJO-GSA-PC vs. LT. V. J. GONZALEZ, 15 ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT Defendant. 16 17 SIXTY DAY DEADLINE TO FILE OPPOSITION 18 19 I. BACKGROUND 20 Steven Joseph Noble IV ("Plaintiff") is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma 21 pauperis with this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff filed the Complaint 22 commencing this action on July 31, 2007. (Doc. 1.) This case now proceeds with the First 23 Amended Complaint, filed by Plaintiff on February 24, 2009, against defendant V. J. Gonzalez 24 (“Defendant”), for retaliation in violation of the First Amendment. (Doc. 15.) On December 25 26, 2012, Plaintiff filed a motion to compel discovery responses, which is pending. (Doc. 44.) 26 On May 29, 2013, Defendant filed a motion for summary judgment, which is pending. (Doc. 27 49.) 28 /// 1 1 On July 1, 2013, Plaintiff filed a motion for stay under Rule 56, requesting the court to 2 postpone consideration of Defendant’s motion for summary judgment, in light of Plaintiff’s 3 pending motion to compel. (Doc. 51.) In the alternative, Plaintiff requests an extension of time 4 to file an opposition to the motion for summary judgment. Id. 5 II. RULE 56 MOTION 6 Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(d), if a nonmovant to a motion for 7 summary judgment shows by affidavit or declaration that for specified reasons he cannot 8 present facts to oppose the motion, the Court may defer consideration of the motion or allow 9 time for further discovery. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(d)(1),(2). The nonmovant must identify by 10 affidavit [or declaration] the specific facts that further discovery would reveal, and explain why 11 those facts would preclude summary judgment. Tatum v. City and County of Sacramento, 441 12 F.3d 1090, 1100 (9th Cir. 2006); Johnson v. JP Morgan Chase Bank, No. CV F-008-0081 LJO 13 SMS, 2009 WL 179727, at 2-3 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 26, 2009). Plaintiff requests the court to postpone consideration of Defendant’s motion for 14 15 summary judgment of May 29, 2013, pending resolution of Plaintiff’s motion to compel of 16 December 26, 2012. Plaintiff has submitted a declaration arguing that he requires the discovery 17 sought in his motion to compel in order to properly prepare, file, and serve his opposition to the 18 motion for summary judgment. Plaintiff’s declaration does not specify the facts that further discovery would reveal or 19 20 explain why those facts would preclude summary judgment. Therefore, Plaintiff’s Rule 56 21 motion shall be denied, without prejudice to renewal of the motion with a declaration meeting 22 the required standard. 23 III. MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME 24 In the alternative, Plaintiff requests a sixty-day extension of time to file an opposition to 25 Defendant’s motion for summary judgment. Good cause appearing, the extension of time shall 26 be granted. 27 /// 28 /// 2 1 IV. CONCLUSION 2 Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 3 1. 4 of Defendant’s motion for summary judgment, is DENIED without prejudice; and 5 6 Plaintiff’s Rule 56 motion, requesting postponement of the court’s consideration 2. Plaintiff is GRANTED sixty days from the date of service of this order in which to file an opposition to Defendant’s motion for summary judgment of May 29, 2013. 7 8 9 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: 10 11 12 July 2, 2013 /s/ Gary S. Austin UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE DEAC_Signature-END: 6i0kij8d 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 3

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?