Mundo v. Taylor, et al.

Filing 55

ORDER in Response to 54 Defendants' Request for Clarification signed by Magistrate Judge Gary S. Austin on 10/12/2017. (Jessen, A)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JONATHAN WAYNE MUNDO, 12 Plaintiff, 13 14 v. 1:15-cv-01681-DAD-GSA-PC ORDER IN RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS’ REQUEST FOR CLARIFICATION (ECF No. 54.) A. TAYLOR, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 18 19 20 I. BACKGROUND 21 Jonathan W. Mundo (“Plaintiff”) is a prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis 22 with this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, filed on November 5, 2015. This 23 case now proceeds with the Fifth Amended Complaint filed on June 15, 2016, against 24 defendants A. Taylor (Pleasant Valley State Prison Classification Staff Representative), F. 25 Salgado (Centinela State Prison (“CEN”) Correctional Counselor), Raybon (CEN Correctional 26 Counselor), and Arias (CEN Facility Captain). (ECF No. 32.) 27 28 On October 6, 2017, Defendants filed a request for clarification of the court’s Discovery and Scheduling Order. (ECF No. 54.) 1 1 II. 2 3 On October 3, 2017, the court issued a Discovery and Scheduling Order in this case. (ECF No. 53.) Defendants request clarification of Section III.A. of the order, which provides: 4 All motions asserting failure to exhaust administrative remedies must be filed on or before 01/03/18. The issue of exhaustion must be raised by either (1) a procedurally proper motion for summary judgment, or (2) a motion to dismiss pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) if the failure to exhaust is clear on the face of the complaint. If the parties believe that discovery related to exhaustion is necessary, they may request discovery pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(d). Requests for limited discovery must be made within 30 calendar days of the date of service of any motion asserting failure to exhaust. A party may also request that discovery, other than discovery related to exhaustion, be stayed pending the resolution of an exhaustion motion. 5 6 7 8 9 10 REQUEST FOR CLARIFICATION (ECF No. 53 at 3:19-26 ¶III.A.) 11 Defendants question why the court’s order requires them to formally request permission 12 to engage in exhaustion-based discovery before propounding it. Defendants assert that Rule 13 56(d) provides the non-movant an opportunity to obtain discovery to oppose an already 14 pending summary-judgment motion, and does not require the moving party to seek leave of the 15 Court to engage in exhaustion-based discovery before filing a motion. 16 discovery is now open for all purposes in this case, Defendants believe they are permitted to 17 engage in discovery on all issues, including exhaustion, without specific leave from the court. Considering that 18 Under Rule 56(d), the court may allow time to “obtain affidavits or declarations or to 19 take discovery” when a non-moving party cannot present facts essential to justify its opposition 20 to a motion for summary judgment. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(d)(2). Analogously, Section III.A. of 21 the court’s Discovery and Scheduling order is meant to allow time for the non-movant to 22 conduct discovery for opposition to an exhaustion motion. The court’s order allows the parties 23 to request that discovery be limited only to exhaustion-based discovery pending resolution of 24 an exhaustion motion. This provision allows the parties to resolve the issue of exhaustion, 25 which may be dispositive to Plaintiff’s claims, without being required to propound or respond 26 to discovery requests concerning issues which may not be necessary to the resolution of the 27 case. 28 judgment has, as one of its most important goals, the elimination of waste of the time and See Zweig v. Hearst Corp., 521 F.2d 1129, 1135–36 (9th Cir. 1975) (“Summary 2 1 resources of both litigants and the courts in cases where a trial would be a useless formality”); 2 see also Comm. of Russian Fed. on Precious Metals and Gems v. United States, 987 F.Supp. 3 1181, 1183 (N.D. Cal. 1997) (“The purpose of summary judgment or summary adjudication is 4 to avoid unnecessary trials when there is no dispute as to the facts before the court”); accord 5 UMG Recordings, Inc. v. Glob. Eagle Entm't Inc., No. CV1403466MMMJPRX, 2015 WL 6 12778410, at *3 (C.D. Cal. Nov. 25, 2015). 7 Defendants are correct that at this stage of the proceedings, discovery is open for all 8 purposes in this case, and Defendants are permitted to engage in discovery on all issues, 9 including exhaustion, without specific leave from the court. 10 11 12 III. CONCLUSION Accordingly, this order HEREBY RESOLVES Defendants’ request for clarification filed on October 6, 2017. 13 14 15 16 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: October 12, 2017 /s/ Gary S. Austin UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 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?