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)

Download PDF
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?