Knapp v. Cate, et al.
Filing
141
ORDER Denying Plaintiff's Motion to Continue Summary Judgment 140 , signed by Magistrate Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe on 11/30/12. Opposition Due Within Thirty Days. (Gonzalez, R)
1
2
3
4
5
6
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
7
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
8
9
ERIC CHARLES RODNEY KNAPP,
10
CASE NO. 1:08-cv-01779-AWI-BAM PC
Plaintiff,
11
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO
CONTINUE SUMMARY JUDGMENT
v.
(ECF Nos. 140)
12
MATTHEW CATE, et al.,
OPPOSITION DUE WITHIN THIRTY DAYS
13
Defendants.
/
14
15
Plaintiff Eric Charles Rodney Knapp (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and
16
in forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action is proceeding
17
on the third amended complaint, filed September 29, 2010, against Defendants Koenig, Pate, Otto,
18
Backlund, Roberson, Clay, Gibb, Hannah, Semsen, Lyons, and Esquer for deliberate indifference
19
to Plaintiff’s need for single cell status in violation of the Eighth Amendment.
20
On September 25, 2012, Defendants filed a motion for summary judgement and motion for
21
a protective order, and an order issued on September 26, 2012, staying the discovery in this action
22
and ordering Plaintiff to file a response to the motion for summary judgement within thirty days.
23
(ECF Nos. 128, 129, 130.) On November 29, 2012, Plaintiff filed a rule 56(d) motion. (ECF No.
24
140.) Plaintiff brings this motion on the grounds that he has diligently pursued discovery and cannot
25
present evidence that Defendants knew he was at a serious risk of harm by being required to double
26
cell.
27
28
1
1
Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(d) when
2
a nonmovant shows by affidavit or declaration, that, for specified reasons,
it cannot present facts essential to justify its opposition, the court may:
3
(1) defer considering the motion or deny it;
4
(2) allow time to obtain affidavits or declarations or to take discovery; or
5
(3) issue any appropriate order.
6
7
Rule 56(d) requires discovery “where the non-moving party has not had the opportunity to
8
discover information that is essential to its opposition.” Roberts v. McAfee, Inc., 660 F.3d 1156,
9
1169 (9th Cir. 2011) (citations omitted). The party seeking the continuance “must show (1) that they
10
have set forth in affidavit form the specific facts that they hope to elicit from further discovery, (2)
11
that the facts sought exist, and (3) that these sought after facts are ‘essential’ to resist the summary
12
judgment motion.” California v. Campbell, 138 F.3d 772, 779 (9th Cir. 1998). In making a Rule
13
56[d] motion, a party opposing summary judgment, “must make clear what information is sought
14
and how it would preclude summary judgment.” Margolis v. Ryan, 140 F.3d 850, 853 (9th Cir.
15
1998) (quoting Garrett v. City and County of San Francisco, 818 F.2d 1515, 1518 (9th Cir. 1987).
16
The party seeking to conduct additional discovery has the burden of setting forth sufficient facts to
17
show that the evidence sought exists. Volk v. D.A. Davidson & Co., 816 F.2d 1406, 1416 (9th Cir.
18
1987).
19
Plaintiff states that he needs further discovery to obtain evidence regarding the state of mind
20
of the defendants in denying him single cell status. However, the issue raised in the motion for
21
summary judgment is that Plaintiff was not denied single cell status from July 31, 2008, through
22
November 16, 2008, when he was transferred for mental health treatment. Therefore, whether
23
Defendants knew that Plaintiff was at a risk of serious harm will not preclude summary judgment
24
in this instance. Since the only issue is whether Plaintiff was double celled during the time period
25
/////
26
////
27
////
28
////
2
1
from July 31, 2008 through November 16, 2008, Plaintiff’s motion for a continuance of Defendants’
2
motion for summary judgement is HEREBY DENIED. Within thirty days from the date of service
3
of this order, Plaintiff shall file an opposition to Defendants’ motion for summary judgment.
4
5
6
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:
10c20k
November 30, 2012
/s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
7
8
9
10
11
12
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?