Furnace v. Evans et al

Filing 123

ORDER RE: DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR CLARIFICATION; GRANTING MOTION TO ENFORCE DISCOVERY STAY; DENYING PLAINTIFF'S CROSS-MOTION TO COMPEL DOCUMENT PRODUCTION. Signed by Judge Maxine M. Chesney on May 25, 2012. (mmclc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/25/2012)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

EDWARD T. FURNACE,

11

Plaintiff,

12
13

v.
M.S. EVANS, et al.,

14
15
16

/

Defendants.

No. C 06-4229 MMC
ORDER RE: DEFENDANTS’ MOTION
FOR CLARIFICATION; GRANTING
MOTION TO ENFORCE DISCOVERY
STAY; DENYING PLAINTIFF’S CROSSMOTION TO COMPEL DOCUMENT
PRODUCTION

Before the Court is (1) defendants’ “Motion for Clarification Regarding Nuckles,

17

Medina, Variz, Vega, Nilsson, and Rodriguez; Request for Re-Screening of the Second

18

Amended Complaint,” filed April 6, 2012; (2) defendants’ “Motion to Enforce Discovery

19

Stay; Request for Briefing Schedule,” filed April 2, 2012; and (3) plaintiff’s “Cross-Motion to

20

Vacate Discovery Stay and Compel Document Production,” filed April 16, 2012. The

21

matters came on regularly for hearing May 25, 2012. Randolph Gaw of O’Melveny &

22

Myers LLP appeared on behalf of plaintiff. Deputy Attorney General Trace O. Maiorino

23

appeared on behalf of defendants. Having read and considered the parties’ respective

24

written submissions, and for the reasons stated at the hearing, the Court rules as follows.

25

1. Based on the Ninth Circuit’s memorandum opinion, Furnace v. Evans, 459 Fed.

26
27
28

Appx. 630 (9th Cir. 2011), remanding the above-titled action for further proceedings:
a. Two causes of action survive against all defendants, specifically, a cause of
action under the First Amendment and a cause of action under the Eighth Amendment.

1

b. No claim for retaliation in violation of the First Amendment remains.

2

c. The First Amendment cause of action will be analyzed under the test set forth in

3

Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78 (1987), and not under the test set forth in Rhodes v.

4

Robinson, 408 F.3d 559 (9th Cir. 2005).

5
6
7
8
9
10

d. The First Amendment cause of action includes both deprivation of personal
property and denial of adequate exercise.
e. Defendants are not precluded from moving for summary judgment on any claim
or as to any defendant.
2. Defendant’s motion for re-screening of plaintiff’s complaint is denied.
3. The stay of discovery, issued by the Court on January 23, 2009, remains in effect

11

until the Court has ruled on the issue of qualified immunity, without prejudice to plaintiff’s

12

moving for discovery in advance of said ruling based on a showing of a factual dispute

13

material to the issue of qualified immunity and the relevance thereto of the discovery

14

sought.

15

4. The Court’s order filed January 23, 2009, denying plaintiff’s motion to compel

16

production of Operations Manual § 55015, remains in effect. If, however, defendants rely

17

on said manual to support a motion for summary judgment, plaintiff may file a response

18

pursuant to Rule 56(d) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure in lieu of an opposition on

19

the merits, which response will be considered before plaintiff is required to file an

20

opposition brief addressing the merits.

21

IT IS SO ORDERED.

22
23

Dated: May 25, 2012
MAXINE M. CHESNEY
United States District Judge

24
25
26
27
28
2