Crane v. Rodriguez et al

Filing 131

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman on 5/09/17 ordering defendants motion for summary judgment 84 is vacated without prejudice to its renewal or re-filing after the discovery disputes are resolved. Plaintiffs motions 115 , 120 , 126 , 129 are denied as moot. Plaintiffs requests for sanctions 113 , 114 , 123 , 125 , 129 are denied. (Plummer, M)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

RICHARD JOSEPH CRANE,

12
13
14
15

No. 2:15-cv-0208 TLN KJN P

Plaintiff,
v.

ORDER

RODRIGUEZ, et al.,
Defendants.

16
17

Plaintiff is a state prisoner, proceeding without counsel. On February 15, 2017, the

18

discovery and scheduling order was vacated, and the parties were allowed to conduct discovery

19

on the issue of exhaustion until March 14, 2017. (ECF No. 104.) The parties were advised that

20

the court would issue a revised scheduling order, if appropriate, following resolution of the

21

motion for summary judgment. (ECF No. 104 at 3.) Multiple motions are pending, which this

22

court addresses below.

23

Plaintiff’s Motions to File Amended Opposition

24

On February 15, 2017, plaintiff’s opposition, signed February 12, 2017, was filed with the

25

court, before plaintiff had benefit of the February 15, 2017 order. Since that date, plaintiff has

26

filed multiple requests to file a revised opposition following completion of discovery. Defendants

27

contend that plaintiff should not be granted leave to file a second opposition or sur-reply without

28

complying with Rule 56(d)(1). In his March 13, 2017, motion, plaintiff explained that he filed his

1

opposition to the motion for summary judgment because he was unsure whether the court would

2

grant his request for stay and permit discovery on the issue of exhaustion.
In light of the court’s order granting leave to conduct discovery on the issue of exhaustion,

3
4

which was filed the same day as plaintiff’s opposition to the motion for summary judgment, the

5

court is inclined to grant plaintiff leave to file an amended opposition on that basis alone.

6

However, since then, defendants have filed a reply in which they withdrew portions of their

7

motion for summary judgment. In addition, plaintiff subsequently filed a motion to compel

8

discovery, for which briefing will not be completed until May 21, 2017. (ECF No. 128.)
“The district court is given broad discretion in supervising the pretrial phase of litigation.”

9
10

Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 607 (9th Cir. 1992) (citation and internal

11

quotation marks omitted).

12

In a § 1983 action, discovery usually occurs first, then the parties file dispositive motions.

13

Because discovery responses are now at issue, and defendants have withdrawn portions of their

14

motion for summary judgment, the undersigned vacates defendants’ motion for summary

15

judgment without prejudice to its renewal or re-filing1 after the discovery disputes are resolved.

16

Plaintiff’s motions for extensions of time to file an amended opposition are denied as moot, and

17

his motion to modify the scheduling order and for stay is also denied as moot.

18

Plaintiff’s Multiple Requests for Sanctions

19

Plaintiff filed multiple requests for sanctions based on the withdrawal of defendant

20

Weeks’ motion to compel apparently because plaintiff had already mailed his responses to the

21

motion. (ECF No. 113-14, 123, 125.) Plaintiff’s requests are unfounded. Under the Federal

22

Rules, defendant Weeks was permitted to file a motion to compel discovery when he had not

23

received timely discovery responses. That plaintiff presented his opposition to the motion to

24

compel to prison officials thirty minutes before he received defendant Weeks’ notice of

25

withdrawal does not provide a basis for this court to impose sanctions. As noted by defendant

26
27
28

1

Defendants are granted leave to file an amended motion that omits those portions they now
withdraw from their first motion. District courts have discretion to entertain successive motions
for summary judgment. Hoffman v. Tonnemacher, 593 F.3d 908, 911 (9th Cir. 2010).
2

1

Weeks, parties are permitted to withdraw pleadings. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 11. Plaintiff’s requests

2

for sanctions are denied.

3

In his motion to modify, plaintiff requests sanctions based on his alleged challenges to two

4

letters appended as exhibits. After reading the motion and the opposition, the undersigned finds

5

no basis for the imposition of sanctions. Any confusion over the deadlines for producing

6

discovery has been minimized by granting plaintiff an extension of time to file a reply to

7

defendants’ opposition to plaintiff’s motion to compel.

8

Repeat Admonishment

9

Plaintiff was previously cautioned that requests for sanctions should be filed only in

10

extraordinary circumstances. (ECF No. 97 at 7.) Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(b) provides

11

that if a party “fails to obey an order to provide or permit discovery,” the court may issue

12

appropriate sanctions, including establishing facts as proven, striking pleadings, dismissal,

13

rendering a default judgment against the disobedient party, or finding a party in contempt of

14

court. Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(b)(2)(A). Rule 41(b) also provides the court with the discretion to

15

dismiss an action if the plaintiff fails to prosecute his action or to comply with the Federal Rules

16

or court orders. Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); See also E.D. Cal., Local Rules 110, 183(a).

17

By repeatedly seeking sanctions, plaintiff unnecessarily burdens the court and the parties

18

by multiplying these proceedings, increasing the cost of this litigation. In addition, the record

19

reflects that plaintiff filed multiple motions seeking the same relief before the court could address

20

his prior motions. Plaintiff is advised that this court faces a very large prisoner caseload, and he

21

should wait for the court’s ruling rather than repeatedly file duplicate requests or motions.

22

Multiple filings by plaintiff impinges on this court’s ability to manage its heavy docket, and

23

further delays the issuance of court rulings.

24

Thus, plaintiff is again cautioned that he should refrain from filing baseless requests for

25

sanctions. In addition, plaintiff should exercise restraint and discretion in filing motions with the

26

court.

27

////

28

////
3

1

Conclusion

2

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

3

1. Defendants’ motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 84) is vacated without prejudice

4

to its renewal or re-filing after the discovery disputes are resolved;

5

2. Plaintiff’s motions (ECF Nos. 115, 120, 126, 129) are denied as moot; and

6

3. Plaintiff’s requests for sanctions (ECF Nos. 113, 114, 123, 125 & 129) are denied.

7

Dated: May 9, 2017

8
9
10
cran0208.mots

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