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)

Download PDF
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?