Bradford v. Ogbuehi

Filing 96

ORDER DENYING Plaintiff's 91 Motion to Defer Ruling on Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment; ORDER DENYING Plaintiff's 94 Motion to Strike Defendants' Opposition, signed by Magistrate Judge Stanley A. Boone on 2/4/2021. (30-Day Deadline) (Martin-Gill, S)

Case 1:17-cv-01128-SAB Document 96 Filed 02/04/21 Page 1 of 4

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

8

RAYMOND ALFORD BRADFORD,

9

Plaintiff,

10
11
12

v.
C. OGBUEHI, et al.
Defendants.

13
14

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No.: 1:17-cv-01128-SAB (PC)
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO
DEFER RULING ON DEFENDANTS’ MOTION
FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, AND DENYING
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO STRIKE
DEFENDANTS’ OPPOSITION
(ECF Nos. 91, 94)

Plaintiff Raymond Alford Bradford is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis

15

in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The parties have consented to Magistrate

16

Judge jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). (ECF No. 77.)

17

Currently before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion Defendants’ motion for summary judgment for

18

failure to exhaust the administrative remedies under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(d), filed

19

January 11, 2021. (ECF No. 91.)

20

I.

21

RELEVANT HISTORY

22

This action is proceeding on Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference claim

23

against Defendants Usher, Rimbach, German, Ulit, Spaeth, and Sao related to Plaintiff’s exposure to

24

and treatment for Valley Fever.

25

On May 5, 2020, Defendants filed an answer to the operative complaint. (ECF No. 65.)

26

On May 12, 2020, the Court issued the discovery and scheduling order, allowing the parties to

27

engage in discovery. (ECF No. 66.) On June 2, 2020, the Court stayed the action and set a settlement

28

conference. (ECF No. 71.) The case did not settle and the stay was lifted on September 23, 2020.
1

Case 1:17-cv-01128-SAB Document 96 Filed 02/04/21 Page 2 of 4

1

(ECF No. 80.) In that order, the Court also set new deadlines related to the completion of discovery

2

and the filing of dispositive motions. (Id.)

3
4
5
6

On December 22, 2020, Defendants Usher and Rimbach filed a motion for summary judgment
based on Plaintiff’s failure to exhaust the administrative remedies. (ECF No. 90.)
On January 11, 2021, Plaintiff filed a motion under Rule 56(d), seeking to defer the
consideration of the motion for summary judgment (ECF Nos. 91, 92.)

7

Defendants filed an opposition on January 13, 2021. (ECF No. 93.)

8

On January 26, 2021, Plaintiff filed a motion to strike Defendants’ opposition. (ECF No. 94.)

9

II.

10

DISCUSSION
Motion to Strike Defendants’ Opposition

11

A.

12

Rule 12(f) provides that “the court may strike from a pleading . . . any redundant, immaterial,

13

impertinent, or scandalous matter.” Motions to strike pursuant to Rule 12(f) are generally regarded

14

with disfavor and the remedy is to be used only “when necessary to discourage parties from raising

15

allegations completely unrelated to the relevant claims and when the interests of justice so require.”

16

Sapiro v. Encompass Ins., 221 F.R.D. 513, 517 (N.D. Cal. 2004).

17

Here, Plaintiff contends that Defendants’ opposition to his Rule 56(d) motion is “redundant,

18

baseless, immaterial, scandalous, impertinent and most importantly fraudulent,” but as addressed

19

above, the Court has considered and found no merit in Plaintiff’s motion. Plaintiff fails to provide a

20

valid basis for finding that Defendants’ opposition should be stricken under Rule 12(f), and Plaintiff’s

21

motion must be denied.

22

B.

Motion to Defer Ruling Under Rule 56(d)

23

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(d) permits a party opposing a motion for summary

24

judgment to request an order deferring the time to respond to the motion and permitting that party to

25

conduct additional discovery upon an adequate factual showing. Rule 56(d) provides that the party

26

must “show[ ] by affidavit or declaration that, for specified reasons, it cannot present facts essential to

27

justify its opposition.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(d). “A party requesting a continuance pursuant to [Rule

28

56(d) ] must identify by affidavit the specific facts that further discovery would reveal, and explain
2

Case 1:17-cv-01128-SAB Document 96 Filed 02/04/21 Page 3 of 4

1

why those facts would preclude summary judgment.” Tatum v. City & Cty. of San Francisco, 441

2

F.3d 1090, 1100 (9th Cir. 2006) (citations omitted).

3

“Though the conduct of discovery is generally left to a district court's discretion, summary

4

judgment is disfavored where relevant evidence remains to be discovered, particularly in cases

5

involving confined pro se plaintiffs.” Klingele v. Eikenberry, 849 F.2d 409, 412 (9th Cir. 1988). Thus,

6

summary judgment in the face of requests for additional discovery is appropriate only where such

7

discovery would be “fruitless” with respect to the proof of a viable claim. Jones v. Blanas, 393 F.3d

8

918, 930 (9th Cir. 2004). “The burden is on the nonmoving party, however, to show what material

9

facts would be discovered that would preclude summary judgment.” Klingele, 849 F.2d at 412; see

10

also Conkle v. Jeong, 73 F.3d 909, 914 (9th Cir. 1995) (“The burden is on the party seeking to conduct

11

additional discovery to put forth sufficient facts to show that the evidence sought exists.”). Moreover,

12

“ ‘[t]he district court does not abuse its discretion by denying further discovery if the movant has

13

failed diligently to pursue discovery in the past.’ ” Conkle, 73 F.3d at 914 (quoting California Union

14

Ins. Co. v. American Diversified Sav. Bank, 914 F.2d 1271, 1278 (9th Cir. 1990)).

15

Plaintiff fails to make the showing required under Rule 56(d). Plaintiff fails to clearly identify

16

what specific evidence or facts that would defeat Defendants’ exhaustion related motion for summary

17

judgment. Plaintiff references a pending emergency appeal; however, it is unlikely that the pending

18

appeal can defeat Defendants’ motion as exhaustion of the administrative remedies must be exhausted

19

prior to filing the action. Jones v. Bock, 549 U.S. 199, 211 (2007); McKinney v. Carey, 311 F.3d

20

1198, 1199-1201 (9th Cir. 2002). Moreover, there appears to be no reason why Plaintiff cannot

21

present his argument regarding the pending appeal and apparent relevancy in filing an opposition to

22

Defendants’ motion. In addition, discovery in this action reopened on September 23, 2020, and

23

Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate that he previously requested information necessary to Defendants’

24

motion and was unable to obtain it. In sum, Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate that he has been

25

“railroaded” by Defendants’ exhaustion related motion for summary judgment to warrant deferring a

26

ruling on the motion. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion to defer ruling on Defendants’ motion for

27

summary judgment must be denied. However, the Court will grant Plaintiff an extension of time in

28
3

Case 1:17-cv-01128-SAB Document 96 Filed 02/04/21 Page 4 of 4

1

which to file an opposition or statement of non-opposition to Defendants’ summary judgment motion

2

in light of this ruling.

3

III.

4

ORDER

5

Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

6

1.

Plaintiff’s Rule 56(d) motion to defer ruling on Defendants’ motion for summary
judgment is denied;

7
8

2.

Plaintiff’s motion to strike Defendants’ opposition is denied; and

9

3.

Plaintiff is granted thirty (30) days from the date of service of this order to file an

10

opposition or statement of non-opposition to Defendants’ motion for summary

11

judgment.

12
13

IT IS SO ORDERED.

14

Dated:

15

February 4, 2021
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

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