Galicia v. Marsh et al

Filing 53

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Stanley A. Boone on 2/28/2017 granting Plaintiff's Motion to Stay ruling on Defendants' motion for summary judgment and denying Plaintiff's Request for Court Order to correspond with inmate witnesses 50 . (Lundstrom, T)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

JOSE GALICIA,

12
13
14

Plaintiff,
v.
T. MARSH, et al.,

15

Defendants.

16
17
18
19
20

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No.: 1:16-cv-00011-DAD-SAB (PC)
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO
STAY RULING ON DEFENDANTS’ MOTION
FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND DENYING
PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST FOR COURT ORDER
TO CORRESPOND WITH INMATE WITNESSES
[ECF No. 50]

Plaintiff Jose Galicia is appearing pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
Currently before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion to stay ruling on Defendants’ pending motion
for summary judgment, filed January 26, 2017. Defendants filed a response on February 1, 2017.

21

I.

22

DISCUSSION
Motion to Stay Ruling on Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment

23

A.

24

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(d) provides that “[i]f a nonmovant shows by affidavit or

25

declaration that, for specified reasons, it cannot present facts essential to justify its opposition, the

26

court may: (1) defer considering the motion or deny it; (2) allow time to obtain affidavits or

27

declarations or to take discovery; or (3) issue any other appropriate order.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(d). In

28

seeking relief under Rule 56(d), Plaintiff bears the burden of specifically identifying relevant
1

1

information, where there is some basis for believing that the information actually exists, and

2

demonstrating that the evidence sought actually exists and that it would prevent summary judgment.

3

Blough v. Holland Realty, Inc., 574 F.3d 1084, 1091 n.5 (9th Cir. 2009) (quotation marks and citation

4

omitted); Getz v. Boeing Co., 654 F.3d 852, 867-68 (9th Cir. 2011); Tatum v. City and County of San

5

Francisco, 441 F.3d 1090, 1100-01 (9th Cir. 2006).

6

“Courts are reluctant to deny Rule 56(d) requests.” Freeman v. ABC Legal Servs., Inc., 827

7

F.Supp.2d 1065, 1071 (N.D. Cal. 2011). Courts generally grant Rule 56(d) motions, “unless the non-

8

moving party has not diligently pursued discovery of the evidence.” Burlington N. Santa Fe R. Col. v.

9

Assiniboine & Sioux Tribes of Fort Peck Reservation, 323 F.3d 767, 773-74 (9th Cir. 2003) (citations

10

omitted).

11

At issue in the exhaustion motion for summary judgment is whether Plaintiff exhausted the

12

administrative remedies as to Defendants Jennings and Guzman. Plaintiff argues that he was subject

13

to retaliation and therefore was thwarted from exhausting the administrative remedies against

14

Defendants Jennings and Guzman.

15

In his motion for discovery, Plaintiff requests to obtain through discovery certain grievances

16

that he claims will support his argument of retaliation. To the extent, Plaintiff may be able to discover

17

admissible/relevant evidence to support his claim of allegations of retaliation, the Court finds that

18

Plaintiff has met his burden under Rule 56(d) and will permit limited discovery as to his argument of

19

retaliation. However, in granting Plaintiff’s request, the Court has not considered the merits of

20

Defendants’ motion for summary judgment and any argument of retaliation thereto by Plaintiff.

21

B.

22

Plaintiff requests a court order directing the California Department of Corrections and

23
24

Motion to Correspondence with Inmate Witnesses

Rehabilitation (CDCR) to permit him to correspond with inmates Gonzales and Mendez.
California Code of Regulations, Title 15, Section 3139 sets forth the procedure an inmate must

25

follow in order to initiate communication with a parolee or other inmate: he must have an interview

26

with his Correctional Counselor, complete a Request for Correspondence Approval form, and obtain

27

written authorization from the Warden of his institution. Cal. Code Regs. tit 15, § 3139(a)-(c).

28
2

Plaintiff does not indicate that he ever sought prior approval to correspond with inmates

1
2

Gonzales and Mendez or that he has been denied permission to correspond with these inmates. (See

3

ECF Nos. 50, 51.) Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion for an order directing the CDCR to allow him to

4

correspond with these inmates is premature and must be denied.

5

II.

6

ORDER

7

Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

8

1.

9

granted;
2.

10
11

3.

Defendants must respond to Plaintiff’s discovery request(s) within thirty (30) days of

service;
4.

14
15

Plaintiff must serve the limited discovery request(s) within twenty-one (21) days of the

date of service of this order;

12
13

Plaintiff’s motion to stay ruling on Defendants’ motion for summary judgment is

Plaintiff’s opposition to Defendants’ motion for summary judgment shall be due within

thirty (30) days of receiving responses to discovery;
Defendants’ reply, if any, shall be due within fourteen (14) days of service of the

16

5.

17

opposition; and

18

6.

Plaintiff’s request for a court order to correspondence with inmate witnesses is denied.

19
20

IT IS SO ORDERED.

21

Dated:

22

February 28, 2017
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

23
24
25
26
27
28
3