Polk v. Cavin et al

Filing 251

ORDER DENYING 249 PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL AND FOR SANCTIONS. Signed by Judge Maxine M. Chesney on February 19, 2013.(mmcsec, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/19/2013)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

12
13
14
15
16

)
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
JAMES CAVIN, et al.,
)
)
Defendants.
_______________________________ )
SUSAN MAE POLK,

No. C 08-1483 MMC (PR)
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION TO COMPEL AND FOR
SANCTIONS
(Docket Nos. 246, 249)

17

On March 17, 2008, plaintiff, a California prisoner then incarcerated at the Central

18

California Women’s Facility in Chowchilla, California (“CCWF”), and proceeding pro se,

19

filed the above-titled civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.1 On March 10, 2010, the

20

Court dismissed plaintiff’s claims and entered judgment for defendants. On August 17,

21

2011, the Ninth Circuit issued an opinion reversing this Court’s dismissal of plaintiff’s

22

claims and remanding for further proceedings. On September 23, 2011, the Court reopened

23

the case and informed the parties they could take discovery in accordance with the Federal

24

Rules of Civil Procedure.

25

On December 22, 2011, defendants filed a motion for summary judgment. Plaintiff’s

26

opposition is currently due on or before March 28, 2013. Now before the Court is plaintiff’s

27

Amended Motion to Compel Disclosure, filed February 14, 2013, by which filing plaintiff

28
1

Plaintiff currently is incarcerated at the California Institution for Women (“CIW”).

1

seeks additional discovery from, as well as sanctions against, the Contra Costa County

2

Sheriff’s Office.2 The motion will be denied for two reasons.

3

First, as stated in the Court’s order of February 8, 2013 (Dkt. No. 244), until plaintiff

4

files her opposition to defendants’ motion for summary judgment, plaintiff may not file any

5

further motions without first obtaining leave of court. Plaintiff has failed to request leave to

6

file the instant motion.

7

Second, as noted above, this case has been re-opened for more than 16 months, and

Indeed, discovery in this action first became available as early as April 30, 2009, when the

10

Court issued its initial order of service. (See Dkt. No. 17at 7 (expressly informing parties

11
For the Northern District of California

defendants’ motion for summary judgment has been pending for more than 13 months.

9

United States District Court

8

they could begin to take discovery).) Under such circumstances, plaintiff has had ample time

12

to conduct and complete any discovery necessary to oppose summary judgment. Moreover, a

13

review of the docket shows plaintiff has already filed several discovery motions, all of which

14

have been resolved by this Court as well as by Magistrate Judge Joseph C. Spero in a timely

15

manner, and plaintiff has not endeavored to show why she needs additional discovery prior to

16

filing her opposition, let alone met the requirements of Rule 56(d) of the Federal Rules of

17

Civil Procedure.

18

Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, plaintiff’s motion to compel and for sanctions

19

is hereby DENIED without prejudice to refiling once the Court has ruled on defendants’

20

motion for summary judgment.

21

This order terminates Docket Nos. 246 and 249.

22

IT IS SO ORDERED.

23

DATED: February 19, 2013
_________________________
MAXINE M. CHESNEY
United States District Judge

24
25
26
27
2

28

The Amended Motion supercedes plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Disclosure, filed
February 11, 2013.
2