Hollis v. High Desert State Prison

Filing 111

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman on 3/22/2011 ORDERING that pltf's 106 motion is DENIED w/out prejudice; pltf's 107 motion for summary judgment is DENIED w/out prejudice; dfts' 109 motion for an extension of tim e is DENIED w/out prejudice; w/in 21 days, pltf to complete and return the Notice of Renewal of Motion selecting the option he wishes to pursue; if pltf opts to pursue one of these motions, dfts to file a response or opposition to the motion pltf elects to pursue w/in 21 days of the filing of the Notice of Renewal of Motion, pltf's reply, if any, due 7 days thereafter. (Yin, K)

-KJN (PC) Hollis v. High Desert State Prison

Doc. 111

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 //// 1
Dockets.Justia.com

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA MARVIN HOLLIS, Plaintiff, vs. KOLLER, et al., Defendants. / Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding without counsel with a civil rights complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff alleges, inter alia, that defendants were deliberately indifferent to his serious medical needs. On December 29, 2010, the court issued a scheduling order setting the discovery deadline for April 15, 2011, but providing that all requests for discovery shall be served not later than sixty days prior to that deadline. (Dkt. No. 103.) On February 28, 2011, plaintiff filed a motion to modify the scheduling order based on his recent hospitalizations and an inability to obtain ink to complete his discovery requests. (Dkt. No. 106 at 1.) Plaintiff contends he requires an extension of the discovery deadline so he can propound requests for admissions and interrogatories to defendants. However, on March 4, 2011, plaintiff filed a motion for summary judgment. ORDER No. 2:08-cv-2810 GEB KJN P

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

On March 16, 2011, defendants filed a request for extension of time to oppose plaintiff's motion for summary judgment, presently due March 22, 2011. Counsel for defendants states he was assigned to this case less than two months ago after previous counsel left the office. By early morning of March 18, 2011, defendants had not filed an opposition or other response to plaintiff's motion to extend the discovery deadline, although the response is not due until March 21, 2011. Local Rule 230(l). However, plaintiff's filings are inconsistent. If plaintiff still needs to propound discovery, his motion for summary judgment is premature. Indeed, the dispositive motion deadline does not run until July 8, 2011. In light of this inconsistency, the court will deny both of plaintiff's motions without prejudice to their renewal. Plaintiff shall file, within twenty-one days from the date of this order, the attached "Notice of Renewal of Motion," asking the court to renew the appropriate motion. Plaintiff does not have to re-file either motion; the notice of renewal will serve to put defendants on notice of the motion plaintiff intends to pursue. If plaintiff opts to pursue the motion to extend the discovery deadline, defendants shall file a response within twenty-one days after plaintiff files his notice of renewal. Plaintiff is cautioned, however, that the court may take judicial notice1 of any other civil rights action he is pursuing in any federal court to determine whether he has been unable to diligently pursue discovery as required by the December 29, 2010 discovery and scheduling order. As an example, defendants' opposition to plaintiff's discovery motion filed in Hollis v. Gorby, 2:09-cv-1627 DAD (TEMP) (Dkt. No. 49), includes a two and a quarter page chart listing documents plaintiff has filed in federal courts between November 1, 2010, and February 28, 2011. At present, plaintiff has seven civil rights actions pending in the Eastern District. //// A court may take judicial notice of court records. See, e.g., Bennett v. Medtronic, Inc., 285 F.3d 801, 803 n.2 (9th Cir. 2002) ("[W]e may take notice of proceedings in other courts, both within and without the federal judicial system, if those proceedings have a direct relation to matters at issue") (internal quotation omitted). 2
1

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26
holl2810.fb

If plaintiff opts to pursue the motion for summary judgment, defendants shall file their opposition within twenty-one days after the filing of the notice of renewal selecting this option. If plaintiff fails to file a notice of renewal within twenty-one days from the date of this order, the case shall proceed as scheduled in the December 29, 2010 discovery and scheduling order. (Dkt. No. 103.) In light of this order, defendants' motion for extension is denied without prejudice. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 1. Plaintiff's February 28, 2011 motion (dkt. no. 106) is denied without prejudice; 2. Plaintiff's March 4, 2011 motion for summary judgment (dkt. no. 107) is denied without prejudice; 3. Defendants' March 16, 2011 motion for extension of time is denied without prejudice; 4. Within twenty-one days from the date of this order, plaintiff shall file the attached Notice of Renewal of Motion selecting the option he wishes to pursue. If plaintiff fails to timely file the Notice of Renewal of Motion, the case will proceed under the December 29, 2010 order. (Dkt. No. 103.) 5. If plaintiff opts to pursue one of these motions, defendants shall file a response or opposition to the motion plaintiff elects to pursue within twenty-one days from the filing of the Notice of Renewal of Motion. Plaintiff's reply, if any, shall be filed seven days thereafter. DATED: March 22, 2011

_____________________________________ KENDALL J. NEWMAN UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

3

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Plaintiff 26 DATED: Plaintiff opts to pursue the motion for summary judgment. (Dkt. No. 107.) Plaintiff is not required to re-file the motion. Plaintiff does not wish to pursue either motion; thus, this case will proceed as scheduled in the December 29, 2010 discovery and scheduling order. (Dkt. No. 103.) vs. KOLLER, et al., Defendants. / NOTICE OF RENEWAL OF MOTION MARVIN HOLLIS, Plaintiff, No. 2:08-cv-2810 GEB KJN P IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Pursuant to the court's order granting plaintiff twenty-one days to renew one of his recently-filed motions, plaintiff chooses the following option: Plaintiff opts to pursue the motion to extend the discovery deadline. (Dkt. No. 106.) Plaintiff is not required to re-file the motion.