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
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?