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)
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?