Brooks v. Tate
Filing
75
ORDER Denying Plaintiff's 66 Motion to Strike Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment; ORDER Granting 69 Request for Extension of Time signed by Magistrate Judge Dennis L. Beck on 09/10/14. 21-Day Deadline. (Gonzalez, R)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
RODNEY BROOKS,
12
Plaintiff,
13
14
v.
HAROLD TATE,
15
Defendant.
Case No. 1:11-cv-01503 AWI DLB PC
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION TO STRIKE DEFENDANT’S
MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
[ECF No. 66]
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S
REQUEST FOR EXTENSION OF TIME
[ECF No. 69]
16
17
Plaintiff Rodney Brooks (“Plaintiff”) is a California state prisoner proceeding pro se and in
18
forma pauperis in this civil action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action is proceeding against
19
Defendant Harold Tate for claims of retaliation in violation of the First Amendment and deliberate
20
indifference to a serious medical need in violation of the Eighth Amendment.
On December 9, 2013, Defendant Tate filed a motion for summary judgment. Plaintiff filed
21
22
a motion to strike the motion for summary judgment on December 26, 2013. Defendant filed an
23
opposition on January 3, 2014. On January 16, 2014, Plaintiff filed a motion requesting an extension
24
of time of forty-five (45) days to file an opposition to Defendant’s motion for summary judgment.
25
Defendant filed an opposition on January 31, 2014. Plaintiff filed a reply on February 18, 2014.
26
I.
27
28
Motion to Strike Motion for Summary Judgment
Plaintiff acknowledges that Defendant filed a motion for summary judgment on December 9,
2013. He states he became aware of the filing on December 18, 2013, when he received a notice of
1
1
errata from Defendant. Plaintiff states he was not served with a copy of the motion for summary
2
judgment. Plaintiff also states that there were discovery motions pending at the time Defendant filed
3
the motion for summary judgment. Plaintiff claims that in light of the outstanding motions, it would
4
be inappropriate to proceed on the motion for summary judgment until those motions are resolved.
5
Finally, Plaintiff contends he did not receive a copy of his deposition transcript as requested from
6
Defendant. He states Defendant should provide him a copy since Defendant relies on the transcript
7
in his motion for summary judgment.
8
Defendant states he duly served Plaintiff at his address of record at Corcoran State Prison.
9
Defendant states, and Plaintiff concedes, that Plaintiff was transferred to California State Prison,
10
Sacramento, on or about December 12, 2013, but Plaintiff did not file a change of address until
11
December 30, 2013. Defendant states he re-served the motion on Plaintiff when he became aware of
12
the changed address. Defendant is correct that it is Plaintiff’s affirmative duty to keep the Court and
13
opposing parties apprised of his current address. Local Rules 182(f), 183(b). Defendant’s service at
14
Plaintiff’s address of record was proper and effective notice of the motion, and is no cause to strike
15
the motion for summary judgment.
16
In addition, Defendant correctly notes that Plaintiff is not entitled to a free copy of his
17
deposition transcript. Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(f)(3). Plaintiff is entitled only to review the transcript and
18
make changes, if he made a request for review before the completion of the deposition. Fed. R. Civ.
19
P. 30(e)(1). If Plaintiff made a timely request, the Court requests that Defendant ensures the review
20
to which he is entitled occurs. With regard to Plaintiff’s concerns about the information Defendant
21
relied on in his motion for summary judgment, Defendant notes that the relevant portions of the
22
deposition transcript were attached to the motion.
As to Plaintiff’s concerns regarding the outstanding discovery motions, the Court has denied
23
24
those motions by separate order.
Accordingly, there are no grounds to strike the motion for summary judgment. Plaintiff’s
25
26
motion will be denied.
27
II.
28
Motion for Extension of Time
On January 16, 2014, Plaintiff requested an extension of time to file an opposition to the
2
1
motion for summary judgment. Plaintiff stated he was seeking additional time because he had not
2
received a copy of the motion for summary judgment until December 31, 2013. In addition, Plaintiff
3
complained that he did not have a copy of the deposition transcript. Also, he claims he requires an
4
extension because there are outstanding discovery motions, and he is relying on that discovery to
5
oppose the motion for summary judgment.
6
Defendant does not oppose a brief extension, but he does oppose a more lengthy extension of
7
forty-five days as Plaintiff had requested. Defendant states Plaintiff has had ample time since
8
receiving the motion for summary judgment to file an opposition. In addition, Defendant claims the
9
delay in receiving the motion was Plaintiff’s own creation since Plaintiff did not timely file a notice
10
of address change with the Court.
11
The Court finds good cause to grant an extension of time. Defendant served the motion for
12
summary judgment on December 9, 2013, and Plaintiff was moved on December 12, 2013. The
13
Court understands that a prison move may affect a prisoner’s ability to timely comply with
14
deadlines, since a prisoner’s legal materials often do not follow the prisoner for several weeks. In
15
addition, Plaintiff states he intended to use information he was attempting to attain by way of the
16
outstanding discovery requests to contest the motion. Although the discovery requests have been
17
denied by separate order, the Court has only now ruled on them. Therefore, Plaintiff’s request for an
18
extension will be granted. Nevertheless, the extension will be for twenty-one (21) days given that
19
Plaintiff will now have had nine months to prepare his opposition. Plaintiff is forewarned that an
20
extension of time will not be granted, absent a showing of good cause.
21
///
22
///
23
///
24
///
25
///
26
///
27
///
28
///
3
1
ORDER
2
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:
3
1)
Plaintiff’s motion to strike Defendant’s motion for summary judgment is DENIED;
2)
Plaintiff’s motion for extension of time to file an opposition to the motion for
4
5
and
6
summary judgment is GRANTED, and Plaintiff is GRANTED twenty-one (21) days from the date
7
of service of this order to file his opposition. No extension of time will be granted absent a
8
showing of good cause.
9
10
11
12
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:
/s/ Dennis
September 10, 2014
L. Beck
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4
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?