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
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?