Richard S. Kindred v. Allenby et al

Filing 71

ORDER Regarding Plaintiff's Reply in Support of Motion to Deny Summary Judgment or Allow Time to Obtain Declarations and Further Discovery, signed by Magistrate Judge Erica P. Grosjean on 1/19/2021. Response due within ten (10) days. (Rivera, O)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11
12

RICHARD SCOTT KINDRED,

13
14
15

Plaintiff,
v.
BRANDON PRICE, et al.,

Case No. 1:18-cv-00554-DAD-EPG (PC)
ORDER REGARDING PLAINTIFF’S
REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO
DENY SUMMARY JUDGMENT OR
ALLOW TIME TO OBTAIN
DECLARATIONS AND FURTHER
DISCOVERY

16
Defendants.

17

(ECF No. 70)

18
19

Plaintiff Richard Scott Kindred (“Plaintiff”), a civil detainee at the Coalinga State

20

Hospital, is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42

21

U.S.C. § 1983.

22

On December 18, 2020, Plaintiff filed a motion pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil

23

Procedure 56(d) requesting that the Court deny the pending motion for summary judgment filed

24

by Defendants B. Price, J. Corona, and Jose Lopez (“Defendants”) or grant Plaintiff an

25

extension of time to obtain declarations of material witnesses and to conduct discovery. (ECF

26

No. 67.) Plaintiff explained that his unit had been quarantined and he has no access to the law

27

library. (Id.) Additionally, Plaintiff requested hard copies of photographs of his property in

28

Evidence Locker 002 and the residential address of Isaac Bonsu, the Unit Supervisor of the unit
-1-

1

where Plaintiff resided at the time of the search at issue in this case. (Id.) Defendants filed an

2

opposition to the motion on December 30, 2020. (ECF No. 68.)

3

On January 8, 2021, the Court entered an order granting Plaintiff’s motion in part and

4

denying it in part. (ECF No. 69.) Specifically, the Court extended the deadline for Plaintiff to

5

file an opposition to Defendants’ motion for summary judgment to February 26, 2021, directed

6

Defendants to provide Plaintiff with hard copies of the photographs of Plaintiff’s property in

7

Evidence Locker 002, and denied the remainder of the motion. (Id.)

8
9

On January 13, 2021, Plaintiff filed a reply in support of the motion. (ECF. No. 70.)
Plaintiff’s reply is dated January 8, 2021 and therefore appears to have been mailed before

10

Plaintiff received the Court’s order entered on January 8, 2021. (See id.) In the reply, Plaintiff

11

explains that his unit is currently quarantined due to COVID-19 exposure and has been

12

quarantined on numerous other occasions. (Id.) California Department of State Hospitals—

13

Coalinga has diverted law library staff to work in quarantined areas and the law library is not

14

able or is unwilling to help Plaintiff obtain copies of legal research and case law. (Id.)

15

According to Plaintiff, law library staff have told the staff in Plaintiff’s unit that they are only

16

able to print out ten pages of cases due to a contract with their service provider, but Plaintiff

17

called the service provider and confirmed that the ten-page limit is for research material such as

18

law books. (Id.) It took three weeks for Plaintiff to obtain six cases, and even then he did not

19

receive copies of the entire case and instead only received three or four pages. (Id.)

20

Plaintiff also reiterates his request for hard copies of photographs of his property in

21

Evidence Locker 002 as well as the residential address of Isaac Bonsu. (ECF No. 70.) Plaintiff

22

argues that Defendants have waived any privilege objections by failing to file a privilege log as

23

required by the Scheduling Order in this case. (Id.) Plaintiff requests that the Court either deny

24

Defendants’ motion for summary judgment or grant Plaintiff an extension of time to file an

25

opposition, and further requests that the Court issue an order directing the California

26

Department of State Hospitals—Coalinga to provide Plaintiff with direct access to the law

27

library or copies of his requested cases and legal research within five (5) days of submitting a

28

request. (Id.)
-2-

The Court has reviewed and considered Plaintiff’s reply and notes that Plaintiff’s

1
2

requests for hard copy photographs and for an extension of time to file an opposition to

3

Defendants’ motion for summary judgment have been granted. However, the reply does not

4

change the Court’s analysis regarding the remainder of the motion. Specifically, it is not clear

5

how obtaining Mr. Bonsu’s address would lead to the discovery of any information that is

6

essential to opposing Defendants’ motion for summary judgment as required by Federal Rule

7

of Civil Procedure 56(d).

8
9

With respect to Plaintiff’s request for an order directing the California Department of
State Hospitals—Coalinga to provide him with direct access to the law library or copies of

10

legal research, Plaintiff has alleged that the law library staff has been diverted to quarantined

11

units and is either unable or unwilling to assist Plaintiff in obtaining legal research and case

12

law. (ECF No. 70.) Plaintiff states that the law library staff have told the staff in Plaintiff’s unit

13

that they are only allowed to print out ten pages of a case due to a contract with their service

14

provider, but Plaintiff has spoken to the service provider by telephone and was informed that

15

the ten-page limit is for research material such as law books. (Id.) Plaintiff additionally explains

16

that it took three (3) weeks for him to obtain six cases consisting of approximately three or four

17

pages, and law library staff refused to copy the entire case. (Id.) Plaintiff does not know the

18

specific pages he needs and still needs four additional cases and other research material. (Id.)

19

Additionally, it has taken Plaintiff a week just to submit a Legal Request Form through the staff

20

in his unit and there is no guarantee how long it will take to receive the requested material. (Id.)

21

The Court will provide Defendants with an opportunity to respond to these allegations.

22

After considering Defendants’ response, the Court will determine if any direction to the

23

institution or other relief is appropriate.

24

///

25

///

26

///

27

///

28

///
-3-

1

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that, within ten (10) days of entry of this

2

order, Defendants shall file a response to Plaintiff’s request for an order directing the California

3

Department of State Hospitals—Coalinga to provide Plaintiff with direct access to the law

4

library or copies of legal research.

5
6
7
8

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

January 19, 2021

/s/
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-4-