Dews v. County of Kern et al

Filing 29

FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS Recommending that Plaintiff's 24 Motion for Summary Judgment be Denied signed by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Seng on 03/16/2013. Referred to Judge Ishii; Objections to F&R due by 4/4/2013. (Flores, E)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 11 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 12 CLARENCE LEON DEWS, CASE NO. 13 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT Plaintiff, 14 15 16 v. (ECF No. 24) COUNTY OF KERN, et al., 17 1:12-cv-0245-AWI-MJS (PC) OBJECTIONS DUE WITHIN FOURTEEN DAYS Defendants. 18 / 19 Plaintiff Clarence Leon Dews (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and 20 in forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §1983. 21 Plaintiff initiated the case on February 21, 2012. (ECF No. 1.) The Court screened 22 Plaintiff’s original Complaint and dismissed it, with leave to amend, for failure to state a 23 claim. (ECF No. 13.) Plaintiff has since filed a First Amended Complaint which has not 24 yet been screened. (Am. Compl., ECF No. 18.) 25 The Court has not yet determined whether Plaintiff’s action states a cognizable 26 claim. The Court has not ordered service or authorized discovery. No other parties have 27 appeared. 28 -1- 1 2 Notwithstanding the very early stage at which this litigation remains, Plaintiff filed a motion for summary judgment on December 4, 2012. (ECF No. 24.) 3 A plaintiff may not proceed against a defendant, and certainly may not seek a 4 judgement against him, unless and until that defendant has been properly served and other 5 procedural rules are complied with. The Court will only serve Plaintiff’s First Amended 6 Complaint after the Court has screened it and determined that it contains cognizable 7 claims for relief against the named defendants. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(A)(a). In a case such 8 as this, Plaintiff may not undertake service unless and until the Court screens his complaint 9 and finds it states a cognizable claim. (ECF No. 12 at ¶ 12.) Further, Federal Rule of Civil 10 Procedure 56 contemplates that, prior to filing a motion for summary judgment, the 11 opposing party should have a sufficient opportunity to discover information essential to its 12 position. See Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 250 (1986). This requires 13 that the case be sufficiently advanced in terms of pretrial discovery for the summary 14 judgment target to know what evidence likely can be mustered and be afforded a 15 reasonable opportunity to present such evidence. 16 Shareholders Protective Comm., 770 F.2d 866, 869 (9th Cir .1985). Portsmouth Square, Inc., v. 17 In short, until the above prerequisites are satisfied, Plaintiff's motion is premature. 18 In the event the Court finds that Plaintiff states a cognizable claim and directs service on 19 Defendants and they appear in the action, a discovery order will be entered and a deadline 20 for the filing of dispositive motions will be set. No further summary judgment motion shall 21 be filed prior to the issuance of the discovery and scheduling order in this case. 22 23 For the reasons set forth herein, the Court RECOMMENDS that Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment, filed on December 4, 2012, be DENIED. 24 These Findings and Recommendations will be submitted to the United States 25 District Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 26 636(b)(l). 27 Recommendations, the Plaintiff may file written objections with the Court. The document 28 should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Within fourteen (14) days after being served with these Findings and -2- 1 Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right 2 to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 3 4 5 IT IS SO ORDERED. 6 Dated: ci4d6 March 16, 2013 Michael J. Seng /s/ 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?