Cochran v. Aguirre, et al.

Filing 69

ORDER Regarding 68 Plaintiff's Motion for Discovery to Oppose Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment and Directing Defendants to Provide a Limited Response Within Twenty-One (21) Days signed by Magistrate Judge Stanley A. Boone on 11/9/2016. (Jessen, A)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

BILLY COY COCHRAN,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14

v.
E. AGUIRRE,

15

Defendant.

16

19
20

Case No.: 1:15-cv-01092-AWI-SAB (PC)
ORDER REGARDING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION
FOR DISCOVERY TO OPPOSE DEFENDANTS’
MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, AND
DIRECTING DEFENDANTS TO PROVIDE A
LIMITED RESPONSE WITHIN TWENTY-ONE
DAYS

Plaintiff Billy Coy Cochran is appearing pro se in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C.

17
18

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

§ 1983.
Currently before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion requesting discovery to oppose Defendant’s
pending exhaustion-related motion for summary judgment, filed November 4, 2016.

21

I.

22

RELEVANT BACKGROUND

23

On September 26, 2016, Defendant filed a motion for summary judgment for failure to exhaust

24

the administrative remedies. On October 6, 2016, Plaintiff filed an opposition, along with a motion to

25

stay discovery and in camera review hearing. (ECF Nos. 55, 56, 57.) In his opposition, Plaintiff states

26

that it “is being prepared without plaintiff’s legal property that was taken by prison officials on 9-21-

27

16 which the defendant is aware of per letter dated 9-21-16.” (ECF No. 55.) Defendant filed a reply

28

to Plaintiff’s opposition on October 13, 2016. (ECF No. 60.)
1

1

On October 13, 2016, the Court denied Plaintiff’s previous request for a copy of the case file

2

and other legal documents. (ECF No. 61.) On October 17, 2016, the Court denied Plaintiff’s motion

3

for a stay of discovery until the return of his legal property. (ECF No. 61.) The Court specifically

4

stated that “Plaintiff fails to demonstrate what documents are necessary to oppose Defendant’s

5

pending motion for summary judgment for failure to exhaust the administrative remedies or how the

6

documents submitted by Defendant’s are not sufficient to resolve the motion.” (See Def.’s Mot.

7

Summ. J., Attach. Exs., ECF No. 62.) On October 24, 2016, the Court denied Plaintiff’s second

8

motion to stay the proceeding, stating “Plaintiff again fails to demonstrate what documents are

9

necessary to oppose the motion and/or how the documents already submitted are not sufficient to

10

resolve the motion.” (ECF No. 64.)

11

II.

12

DISCUSSION

13

A.

Legal Standard

14

Rule 56(d) provides that “[i]f a nonmovant shows by affidavit or declaration that, for specified

15

reasons, it cannot present facts essential to justify its opposition, the court may: (1) defer considering

16

the motion or deny it; (2) allow time to obtain affidavits or declarations or to take discovery; or (3)

17

issue any other appropriate order.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(d). In seeking relief under Rule 56(d), Plaintiff

18

bears the burden of specifically identifying relevant information, where there is some basis for

19

believing that the information actually exists, and demonstrating that the evidence sought actually

20

exists and that it would prevent summary judgment. Blough v. Holland Realty, Inc., 574 F.3d 1084,

21

1091 n.5 (9th Cir. 2009) (quotation marks and citation omitted); Getz v. Boeing Co., 654 F.3d 852,

22

867-868 (9th Cir. 2011); Tatum v. City and County of San Francisco, 441 F.3d 1090, 1100-1101 (9th

23

Cir. 2006).
Plaintiff’s Motion

24

B.

25

In the instant motion, Plaintiff requests an order for the Clerk of the Court to produce

26

documents filed with the court, documents in the California Department of Corrections and

27

Rehabilitation possession that have been removed from his central file, and documents in Defendant’s

28
2

1

possession. This is essentially Plaintiff’s third request seeking the documentation to oppose

2

Defendant’s exhaustion-related motion for summary judgment.

3

As an initial matter, the Court notes that although Plaintiff contends he does not have access to

4

his legal property and documentation from his central file, Plaintiff is able to identify by name and

5

docket entry number several documents filed with the Court, and several inmate grievance forms by

6

log number. Thus, it appears that Plaintiff has some access to his legal documentation.

7

Nonetheless, to the extent Plaintiff requests copies of documents filed with the Court, Plaintiff

8

was previously advised, the Court does not provide free copies of case documents to parties. The

9

Clerk of Court charges $.50 per page for copies of documents. See 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a). Copies of up

10

to twenty pages may be made by the Clerk Office at this Court upon written request and prepayment

11

of the copy fees. The fact that the Court has granted leave for Plaintiff to proceed in forma pauperis

12

does not entitle him to free copies of documents from the Court. Under 28 U.S.C. § 2250, the Clerk is

13

not required to furnish copies without costs to an indigent plaintiff except by order of the judge.

14

Plaintiff is obligated to make and keep a copy of every document submitted to the Court or exchanged

15

between the parties. Indeed, over the course of this action, Plaintiff has submitted numerous exhibits,

16

and the Court will not weed through hundreds of pages of exhibits to determine and locate the

17

documentation that Plaintiff seeks. If Plaintiff believes the documentation is already in the case file,

18

Plaintiff need to simply reference such document for the Court to locate and consider. McLaughlin v.

19

Liu, 849 F.2d 1205, 1206 n. 3 (9th Cir. 1988) (“[It] is well-established that a party opposing summary

20

judgment may rely on material already on file in the case.”) Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion for copies

21

of certain documents from the case file shall be denied.

22

With regard to Plaintiff’s request for a copy of certain discovery requests and responses, the

23

Court does not and cannot provide Plaintiff a copy of such documents. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s

24

request for a copy of discovery documents shall be denied.

25

Lastly, with regard to Plaintiff’s claim that he does not presently have access to his legal

26

property and documentation from his central file, the Court cannot adequately resolve such claim

27

without input from Defendant. Accordingly, Defendant will be ordered to file a response to Plaintiff’s

28

claim that he does not have access to his legal property and documentation within his central file.
3

1

III.

2

ORDER

3

Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

4

1.

Plaintiff’s request for copies of court filings and discovery requests is DENIED; and

5

2.

Within twenty-one (21) days from the date of service of this order, Defendant shall file

6

a response to Plaintiff’s request that he does not have access to his legal property and

7

documentation within his central file necessary to oppose the pending motion for

8

summary judgment.

9
10

IT IS SO ORDERED.

11

Dated:

12

November 9, 2016
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4