Sharonoff v. California Department of Corrections et al

Filing 36

ORDER Denying Plaintiff's Motion for More Definite Statement re 25 29 ; ORDER Extending Time for Plaintiff to Renew Rule 56 Motion, signed by Magistrate Judge Gary S. Austin on 1/4/17. Motion Deadline 01/31/2017. (Gonzalez, R)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

KENNETH ALLEN SHARONOFF,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14

vs.
MONTOYA, et al.,

15

Defendants.

1:15-cv-00799-GSA-PC
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION
FOR MORE DEFINITE STATEMENT
(ECF No. 25, 29.)
ORDER EXTENDING TIME FOR PLAINTIFF
TO RENEW RULE 56 MOTION
DEADLINE:

16

January 31, 2017

17
18

I.

BACKGROUND

19

Kenneth Allen Sharonoff (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma

20

pauperis with this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On May 27, 2015, Plaintiff

21

filed the Complaint commencing this action. (ECF No. 1.) This case now proceeds with the

22

Third Amended Complaint filed on January 20, 2016, against defendants M. Montoya and J.

23

Torres-Azarte, for failure to protect Plaintiff in violation of the Eighth Amendment. (ECF No.

24

14.) Defendants’ motion for summary judgment is pending. (ECF No. 23.)

25

On August 8, 2016, Plaintiff filed a “Motion for Discovery Under Rule 56 and Request

26

for Time Extension [to respond to Defendants’ motion for summary judgment].” (ECF No.

27

25.) On October 18, 2016, the Court denied the motion, without prejudice to renewal of the

28

motion within thirty days. (ECF No. 32.)
1

1

On November 8, 2016, Plaintiff filed a motion for more definite statement, which is

2

now before the Court. (ECF No. 34.)

3

II.

4

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR MORE DEFINITE STATEMENT
Plaintiff requests the Court to amend the order issued on October 18, 2016, to

5

“[i]dentify Statute or Court Rule that compels the deadline.”

(ECF No. 34 at 1:12-13.)

6

Plaintiff argues that without this amendment, he will not be permitted to use the prison law

7

library to renew his Rule 56 motion pursuant to the order. Plaintiff attaches a copy of a request

8

he made for access to the law library on October 25, 2016, which was denied by prison staff

9

because of “no evidence of court established deadline.” (Exhibit to ECF No. 34.)

10

Discussion

11

The Court’s October 18, 2016 order itself establishes a “thirty-day deadline” for

12

Plaintiff to renew his Rule 56 motion. (ECF No. 34.) No other authority is needed. Plaintiff

13

should show the order to prison staff as evidence of a court-established deadline. There is no

14

need to amend the order to identify a statute or court rule. Therefore, Plaintiff’s motion for

15

more definite statement shall be denied.

16

Moreover, Plaintiff does not need to conduct research at the law library to renew his
As instructed in the October 18, 2016 order, Plaintiff must “submit a

17

Rule 56 motion.

18

declaration establishing the following: facts indicating a likelihood that controverting evidence

19

exists as to a material fact; specific reasons why he did not obtain such evidence earlier in the

20

proceedings (i.e. ‘good cause’); the steps or procedures by which he proposes to obtain such

21

evidence within a reasonable time; and an explanation of how those facts will suffice to defeat

22

the pending motion for summary judgment (i.e., to rebut the movant’s allegations of no genuine

23

issue of material fact).”

24

words, attesting to facts known by Plaintiff.1 No research in the law library is needed to

25

prepare the declaration.

(ECF no. 32 at 3:1-6.) Plaintiff’s declaration must be in his own

26
27
28

1

The declaration must be dated and signed by Plaintiff, attesting under penalty of perjury to
facts known by the declarant, in substantially the following form: “I declare under penalty of perjury that the
foregoing is true and correct. Executed on (date). (Signature).” Such a declaration, if properly prepared, is
admissible in federal court with the same effect as an affidavit. 28 U.S.C. § 1746.
2

1
2

Plaintiff shall be granted an extension of time in which to renew the Rule 56 motion.
III.

CONCLUSION

3

Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

4

1.

5

DENIED;

6

2.

7

Plaintiff’s motion for more definite statement, filed on November 8, 2016, is

Plaintiff is GRANTED an extension of time until January 31, 2017 in which to

renew his Rule 56 motion, pursuant to the Court’s order issued on October 18, 2016.

8
9
10
11

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

January 4, 2017

/s/ Gary S. Austin
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3