Cooper v. Kaur, et al

Filing 56

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Dale A. Drozd on 01/05/12 ordering plaintiff's motion pursuant to Rule 56(d) 44 is denied. Plaintiff is granted 21 days from the date of service of this order to file an opposition to defendants' motion for summary judgment. Defendants may file a reply, if any, within 7 days of service of plaintiff's opposition. (Plummer, M)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

TROY COOPER,

11
12
13
14

Plaintiff,

No. CIV S-10-1057 GEB DAD P

Defendants.

ORDER

vs.
KAUR, et al.,

15
16

/
Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a civil rights action seeking

17

relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Pending before the court is a motion for summary judgment

18

brought on behalf of defendants Chen and Kaur pursuant to Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil

19

Procedure. Plaintiff has not opposed the motion. Plaintiff has, however, filed a motion pursuant

20

to Rule 56(d) (formerly Rule 56(f)).

21

In his motion, plaintiff argues that he is unable to present facts essential to justify

22

his opposition to defendants’ motion for summary judgment. Specifically, plaintiff declares that

23

for approximately seven months he has been waiting for authenticated copies of his medical

24

records maintained by the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation but has not

25

yet received them. In response to plaintiff’s motion, defendants contend that although plaintiff

26

has requested but not yet received authenticated copies of his medical records, plaintiff has
1

1

requested and received several copies of his medical records for the 2008 time period when the

2

alleged constitutional violations occurred. Defendants also contend that plaintiff has requested

3

and received his medical records for the period of time from 2002 to 2010.

4

Rule 56(d) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides:

5
6

If a nonmovant shows by affidavit or declaration that, for specified
reasons, it cannot present facts essential to justify its opposition,
the court may:

7

(1) defer considering the motion or deny it;

8

(2) allow time to obtain affidavits or declarations or to take
discovery; or

9
(3) issue any other appropriate order.
10
11
12

Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(d).
After reviewing the parties’ briefing, it appears that plaintiff has copies of the

13

medical records he needs to oppose defendants’ motion for summary judgment. Although the

14

records are not authenticated, defendants do not appear to have any objection to plaintiff’s use of

15

unauthenticated medical records for purposes of opposing their motion for summary judgment.

16

Moreover, as a practical matter, it would be an abuse of this court's discretion to refuse to

17

consider such evidence offered by a pro se plaintiff at the summary judgment stage. See Jones v.

18

Blanas, 393 F.3d 918, 935 (9th Cir. 2004) (reversing and remanding with instructions to consider

19

evidence offered by the pro se plaintiff in his objections to the findings and recommendations);

20

Fraser v. Goodale, 342 F.3d 1032, 1036-37 (9th Cir. 2003) (district court properly considered a

21

diary which defendants moved to strike as inadmissible hearsay because “[a]t the summary

22

judgment stage, we do not focus on the admissibility of the evidence’s form. We focus instead

23

on the admissibility of its contents.”); Johnson v. Meltzer, 134 F.3d 1393, 1399-40 (9th Cir.

24

1998) (reversing and remanding for consideration of the pro se plaintiff’s verified motion as an

25

affidavit in opposition to summary judgment); see also Fryman v. Traquina, No. CIV S-07-2636

26

JAM DAD P, 2009 WL 113590 at *11 n.5 (E.D. Cal. Jan.15, 2009) (overruling defendants’
2

1

objections to plaintiff’s medical records on the grounds that they are not properly authenticated

2

because “[i]t cannot reasonably be disputed that the records in question are plaintiff’s medical

3

records from his prison file. Those records are created and maintained by prison officials.”).

4

Finally, if this case proceeds past the summary judgment stage, plaintiff will have sufficient time

5

to authenticate the documents in question prior to trial.

6

Accordingly, under the circumstances of this case, the court will deny plaintiff’s

7

Rule 56(d) motion. The court will also grant plaintiff twenty-one days to file an opposition to

8

defendants’ motion for summary judgment. Plaintiff may submit with his opposition

9

unauthenticated medical records for the court’s review.

10

In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

11

1. Plaintiff’s motion pursuant to Rule 56(d) (Doc. No. 44) is denied;

12

2. Plaintiff is granted twenty-one days from the date of service of this order to file

13

an opposition to defendants’ motion for summary judgment. Failure to file an opposition will be

14

deemed as a statement of non-opposition and may result in a recommendation that this action be

15

dismissed pursuant Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b); and

16

3. Defendants may file a reply, if any, within seven days of service of plaintiff’s

17

opposition.

18

DATED: January 5, 2012.

19
20
21

DAD:9
coop1057.56d

22
23
24
25
26
3