Estrada v. Rowe et al

Filing 125

ORDER DENYING 111 PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE RELIEF; DENYING 110 PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL; DENYING 124 PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO STAY; EXTENDING DEADLINE FOR PLAINTIFF'S OPPOSITION TO MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT. Signed by Judge Maxine M. Chesney on August 2, 2011. (mmcsec, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/2/2011) (Additional attachment(s) added on 8/2/2011: # 1 Certificate of Service) (tlS, COURT STAFF).

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

12
13
14
15
16

JAIME IGNASCIO ESTRADA, )
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
LINDA CAROL ROWE, M.D., )
)
MICHAEL SAYRE, M.D.,
)
NANCY ADAMS, M.D.,
)
)
Defendants.
____________________________)

No. C 08-2801 MMC (PR)
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION
FOR ADMINISTRATIVE RELIEF;
DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR
APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL; DENYING
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO STAY;
EXTENDING DEADLINE FOR PLAINTIFF’S
OPPOSITION TO MOTIONS FOR
SUMMARY JUDGMENT
(Docket Nos. 110, 111, 124)

On June 5, 2008, plaintiff, a California prisoner incarcerated at Pelican Bay State

17

Prison (“PBSP”) and proceeding pro se, filed against Linda Rowe, M.D. and Michael Sayre,

18

M.D., two physicians employed at PBSP, the above-titled civil rights action under 42 U.S.C.

19

§ 1983, claiming deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs and seeking injunctive

20

relief. Subsequently, the Court granted plaintiff’s request to amend his complaint to include

21

a claim for damages, and plaintiff thereafter filed his First Amended Complaint (“FAC”).

22

After defendants filed an answer to the FAC, the Court referred the matter to Magistrate

23

Judge Nandor J. Vadas for mediation proceedings, but the parties were unable to reach an

24

agreement. Plaintiff then moved to file a supplemental complaint alleging ongoing

25

inadequate medical care and naming Nancy Adams, M.D., as an additional defendant. The

26

Court granted plaintiff’s request and directed defendants to file a motion for summary

27

judgment or other dispositive motion with respect to the claims found to be cognizable in the

28

FAC and supplemental complaint.

On August 27, 2010, defendants filed three separate motions for summary judgment.

1
2

By order filed January 25, 2011, the Court, pursuant to Rule 56(d) of the Federal Rules of

3

Civil Procedure, denied the motions without prejudice, in order to permit the parties to

4

resolve pending discovery matters. On February 28, 2011, plaintiff reported that the parties

5

were able to resolve their discovery disputes and that plaintiff would not seek to compel

6

further discovery. Accordingly, the Court afforded defendants leave to renew their motions

7

for summary judgment. Defendants renewed their three separate motions for summary

8

judgment on July 15, 2011.

administrative relief; (2) plaintiff’s motion for appointment of counsel; and (3) plaintiff’s

11
For the Northern District of California

Now before the Court are three motions filed by plaintiff: (1) plaintiff’s motion for

10

United States District Court

9

motion to stay defendants’ motions for summary judgment.

12

A.

13

Motion for Administrative Relief
Plaintiff asks the Court to make and mail, to plaintiff and defendants, copies of

14

plaintiff’s opposition to defendants’ summary judgment motions, which opposition, plaintiff

15

anticipates, will exceed 100 pages, inclusive of exhibits. The instant motion is plaintiff’s

16

second such request for administrative relief. According to plaintiff, PBSP regulations

17

impose a 100-page limit on the number of copies PBSP will make for a prisoner, thereby

18

precluding plaintiff from keeping a copy for himself and providing copies to defendants.

19

The Court previously denied plaintiff’s request without prejudice, on the ground that it

20

was premature. Specifically, at the time of plaintiff’s previous request, there was no pending

21

motion for summary judgment and, consequently, plaintiff had not submitted to any prison

22

official any opposition to be copied. Moreover, plaintiff failed to show he was unable to

23

obtain copies thereof by any means other than the requested process.

24

Apparently in response to the above ruling, plaintiff now submits a section of the

25

PBSP Operations Manual. (See Mot. for Admin Rel. Ex. A.) (providing “[i]n no event shall

26

staff be required to duplicate a legal document exceeding 100 pages in length in the absence

27

of a court order directing the duplication”). Plaintiff, however, has not shown the number of

28

pages he anticipates submitting are in fact necessary, and, consequently, fails to show good
2

1

cause for an order directing the Clerk of Court to make and mail the requested copies at court

2

expense. The Court, nevertheless, will not require plaintiff to himself serve defendants with

3

copies of his opposition. Rather, plaintiff may file his opposition and any exhibits thereto,

4

and the Clerk will scan such filing into the Court’s electronic filing system (“ECF”), from

5

which defendants may obtain the filing. If plaintiff seeks copies for himself beyond the

6

number of pages PBSP will provide to him, he may complete the Court’s form request for

7

photocopies and pay the applicable copying fees described therein. A copy of the form

8

request along with instructions for completing it are provided to plaintiff herewith.

9

B.

Plaintiff’s instant motion for appointment of counsel represents plaintiff’s fourth such

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

Motion for Appointment of Counsel

request in this matter. For the reasons stated in the Court’s prior orders, plaintiff’s new

12

motion for appointment of counsel will be denied. If the Court subsequently determines

13

appointment of counsel is warranted, the Court will seek volunteer counsel to represent

14

plaintiff.

15

C.

16

Motion to Stay Defendants’ Motions for Summary Judgment
Plaintiff moves for an order staying defendants’ motions for summary judgment

17

pending ruling on his above-described motions for administrative relief and counsel. By the

18

instant order, those motions have been resolved. Accordingly, plaintiff’s motion to stay

19

summary judgment proceedings will be denied as moot. The Court will, however, extend

20

plaintiff’s deadline to file an opposition to defendants’ summary judgment motions as set

21

forth below.

22

CONCLUSION

23

For the foregoing reasons, the Court orders as follows:

24

1. Plaintiff’s motion for administrative relief is hereby DENIED. Plaintiff’s

25

opposition to defendants’ motions for summary judgment will be deemed served on the date

26

plaintiff files such opposition with the Court.

27

2. Plaintiff’s motion for appointment of counsel is hereby DENIED.

28

3. Plaintiff’s motion to stay defendants’ motions for summary judgment is hereby
3

1

DENIED.

2

4. Plaintiff shall file his opposition to defendants’ motions for summary judgment no

3

later than September 15, 2011. Defendants shall file their replies to plaintiff’s opposition no

4

later than October 7, 2011.

5

This order terminates Docket Nos. 110, 111, and 124.

6

IT IS SO ORDERED.

7
8
9

DATED: August 2, 2011
_________________________
MAXINE M. CHESNEY
United States District Judge

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

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