Revis v. Syerson et al

Filing 41

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Edmund F. Brennan on 11/18/2014 GRANTING in part plaintiff's 36 motion to compel, and defendant shall have 7 days to provide plaintiff with a verfication of his responses to plaintiff's interrogatories, the motion is otherwise DENIED; plaintiff's 40 motion for extension of time is GRANTED, and plaintiff shall file his opposition brief no later than 12/7/2014. (Yin, K)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

ANDRE L. REVIS,

12
13
14
15

No. 2:12-cv-2751-MCE-EFB P

Plaintiff,
v.

ORDER

DALE SYERSON. et al.,
Defendants.

16
17

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding without counsel in an action brought under 42

18

U.S.C. § 1983. He has filed a brief motion asking for summary judgment and a “court-appointed

19

arbitrator” for settlement negotiations and complaining that defendant’s responses to his

20

interrogatories were late and without verification. ECF No. 36. Defendant has filed no

21

opposition and the time for filing an opposition has passed.

22

Plaintiff’s motion is unclear as to what relief he seeks regarding defendant’s late and

23

verification-less interrogatories responses. To the extent he seeks sanctions because the responses

24

were provided one day late, that request is denied. Defense counsel asked plaintiff to stipulate to

25

extra time to respond on June 17, 2014, five days before the responses were due, because he was

26

encountering some difficulty conferring with his now-retired client. Id. at 9. Apparently,

27

plaintiff refused that request and defendant filed the responses on June 23, 2014, one day after the

28

deadline. Plaintiff has not shown that this one-day delay has prejudiced him in any way.
1

1

To the extent plaintiff seeks to compel defendant to provide a verification for the

2

interrogatories, that request is granted. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 33(b)(5) requires that the

3

person answering interrogatories sign them.

4

Although he is not entirely clear, plaintiff requests in his motion that he be granted

5

summary judgment because the defendant was late in responding to the discovery request. ECF

6

No. 36 at ¶ 6. That request is denied for the reasons stated above denying plaintiff’s request for

7

sanctions. To the extent that plaintiff intended the request as a motion for summary judgment

8

under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56, the request is denied without prejudice. Rule 56(a)

9

authorizes the granting of summary judgment to a party who shows that there is no genuine

10

dispute as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of

11

law. Not only does plaintiff’s motion does not make that showing, and his motion for summary

12

judgment is procedurally defective. Local Rule 230(b) requires that the moving party file a

13

motion, an accompanying brief and any supporting affidavits or exhibits with the motion.

14

Plaintiff’s single sentence request in his discovery motion fails to satisfy those requirements. Any

15

renewed summary judgment must comply with Fed. R. Civ. P. 56 and Local Rules 230(b) and (I).

16
17
18

Plaintiff’s request for the appointment of an arbitrator to assist plaintiff with settlement
negotiations is also denied. He provides no authority for such a request.
Plaintiff has also filed a motion for extension of time to respond to defendant’s currently-

19

pending motion for summary judgment. ECF No. 40. Plaintiff has given the court no reason

20

explaining why he needs additional time. Nevertheless, in light of plaintiff’s status as a pro se,

21

incarcerated litigant, he is granted 21 additional days for the filing of his opposition brief. The

22

court admonishes plaintiff that he must support any future requests for extensions of time with

23

reasons why the deadline cannot be met despite the exercise of due diligence.

24

For the foregoing reasons, it is hereby ORDERED that:

25

1. Plaintiff’s August 18, 2014 motion to compel, etc. (ECF No. 36) is granted in part, and

26

defendant shall have 7 days from the date of this order to provide plaintiff with a

27

verification of his responses to plaintiff’s interrogatories. The motion is otherwise

28

denied.
2

1
2
3

2. Plaintiff’s November 10, 2014 motion for extension of time (ECF No. 40) is granted,
and plaintiff shall file his opposition brief no later than December 7, 2014.
DATED: November 18, 2014.

4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3