Brown v. Fambrough et al
Filing
58
ORDER Granting Plaintiff's Motion for Defendants to Lodge Discovery Evidence 41 ; Lodged Evidence Due Within Fourteen (14) Days; ORDER Denying Plaintiff's Motion for Stay of Summary Judgment 42 as Moot, signed by Magistrate Judge Dennis L. Beck on 9/8/11. (Gonzalez, R)
1
2
3
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
4
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
5
6
THORNELL BROWN,
7
Plaintiff,
8
9
CASE NO. 1:09-CV-00573-DLB PC
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION
FOR DEFENDANTS TO LODGE
DISCOVERY EVIDENCE (DOC. 41)
v.
JAWAYNE FAMBROUGH, et al.,
10
LODGED EVIDENCE DUE WITHIN
FOURTEEN (14) DAYS
Defendants.
11
/
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION
FOR STAY OF SUMMARY JUDGMENT AS
MOOT (DOC. 42)
12
13
Plaintiff Thornell Brown (“Plaintiff”) is a prisoner in the custody of the California
14
Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (“CDCR”). Plaintiff is proceeding pro se and in
15
forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action is proceeding
16
against Defendants Jawayne Fambrough, Jackson Copeland, V. Yates, Stephaine Amoako,
17
Jerome Peacock, and John Whitehead for violation of the Eighth Amendment. Pending before
18
the Court are: 1) Plaintiff’s motion for Defendants to lodge discovery evidence with the Court,
19
filed January 31, 2011, and 2) Plaintiff’s motion for stay of any summary judgment motion
20
pending resolution of Plaintiff’s discovery requests. Docs. 41, 42. Defendants filed a statement
21
of non-opposition on February 2, 2011. Doc. 43. The matter is submitted pursuant to Local Rule
22
230(l).
23
I.
Motion To Lodge Discovery
24
Plaintiff moves to lodge discovery with the Court, namely a DVD videotape of Plaintiff’s
25
injuries and statements concerning this case. Plaintiff appears to refer to a use-of-force interview
26
which occurred after the alleged excessive force incident at issue in this action. Plaintiff cites to
27
this interview in his pleadings. See Compl. ¶¶ 59-61, Doc. 1. Defendants do not oppose lodging
28
a copy of the use-of-force videotaped interview with the Court. Defs.’ Non-Opp’n 1:20-25.
1
1
Defendants request that they be permitted to submit a DVD copy of the interview.
2
Defendants have filed a motion for summary judgment on April 4, 2011. Plaintiff filed
3
his opposition on May 16, 2011. In Plaintiff’s opposition, Plaintiff cites to his complaint, which
4
includes a cite to this interview. In the interest of justice, the Court will grant Plaintiff’s motion
5
and require Defendants to lodge a DVD copy of this interview with the Court for adjudication of
6
Defendants’ motion for summary judgment.
7
II.
8
9
Motion To Stay Summary Judgment Pending Discovery
Plaintiff moves to stay any motion for summary judgment until Plaintiff’s discovery
disputes were resolved. Plaintiff had filed motions to compel on December 28, 2010. Docs. 38,
10
39. Plaintiff in effect filed a motion pursuant to Rule 56(d) of the Federal Rules of Civil
11
Procedure, which allows the Court to defer adjudication of a summary judgment motion until
12
discovery is taken. Plaintiff’s motion is moot on two grounds. First, no summary judgment
13
motion had been filed with the Court at the time Plaintiff filed the instant motion. Second, the
14
Court adjudicated Plaintiff’s motions to compel on April 18, 2011, denying Plaintiff’s motions.
15
Order, Doc. 53. Thus, Plaintiff’s Rule 56(d) motion is moot.
16
III.
Conclusion And Order
17
Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:
18
1.
19
20
Plaintiff’s motion to lodge discovery with the Court, filed January 31, 2011, is
GRANTED;
2.
Defendants are to lodge a DVD copy of the use-of-force videotaped interview
21
pertaining to this action with the Court within fourteen (14) days from the date of
22
service of this order; and
23
3.
24
25
26
Plaintiff’s motion to stay summary judgment pending discovery, filed January 31,
2011, is DENIED as moot.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:
3b142a
September 8, 2011
/s/ Dennis L. Beck
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
27
28
2
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?