Payton v. Sadeghi et al

Filing 45

ORDER Denying Rule 56(f) Motion and Extending Time to File Opposition to Motions for Summary Judgment. Signed by Judge Ronald M. Whyte on 4/24/09. (jg, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/24/2009)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

*E-FILED - 4/24/09*

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

EDWARD PAYTON, Plaintiff, v. DR. SADEGHI, et al., Defendants.

) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

No. C 06-3649 RMW (PR) ORDER DENYING RULE 56(f) MOTION AND EXTENDING TIME TO FILE OPPOSITION TO MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Plaintiff, a California prisoner proceeding pro se, filed the instant civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On September 10, 2008, defendants Novato Community Hospital and The Director of Novato Community Hospital (the "Novato Defendants ") moved for summary judgment as to all claims against them. In response to their motion, plaintiff filed a document titled "Opposition to Motion for Summary Judgment on Behalf of Defendants Novato Community Hospital and The Director of Novato Community Hospital." In his opposition, plaintiff argued that summary judgment should be denied as premature and requested additional sixty days to complete discovery. In particular, plaintiff hoped that further discovery might elicit facts that would establish a relationship between defendant Dr. Sadeghi and the Novato Defendants. On October 17, 2008, the Novato Defendants filed a reply opposing plaintiff's request for additional time.
Order Denying Rule 56(f) Request and Extending Time to File Opposition to Motions for Summary Judgment 1 P:\pro-se\sj.rmw\cr.06\Pay t on649eot

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Separately, on January 23, 2009, defendants James E. Tilton, Robert Ayers, J. Sadeghi, M.D. and N. Grannis (the "Individual Defendants ") filed a motion for summary judgment as to all claims against them. Plaintiff did not file an opposition to this motion. The court construes plaintiff's opposition in response to the Novato Defendants' motion for summary judgement as a motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(f).1 See Bailey v. City of New York, 2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 7254, *32-33 (S.D.N.Y. May 2, 2003) (court construed request for additional discovery from a pro se plaintiff in response to a motion for summary judgment as an application pursuant to Rule 56(f)); see also Program Eng'g, Inc. v. Triangle Publications, Inc., 634 F.2d 1188, 1193 (9th Cir. 1980) (motion to strike portions of summary judgment motion was sufficient to raise Rule 56(f) consideration). A Rule 56(f) motion requires the moving party to show: "(1) that they have set forth in affidavit form the specific facts that they hope to elicit from further discovery, (2) that the facts sought exist, and (3) that these sought-after facts are `essential' to resist the summary judgment motion." State of Cal., on Behalf of California Dept. of Toxic Substances Control v. Campbell, 138 F.3d 772, 779 (9th Cir. 1998). The court finds that plaintiff's Rule 56(f) motion is not well taken. Plaintiff neither attached an affidavit to his opposition brief, nor verified his brief. Furthermore, plaintiff specified only one fact that he hoped to elicit through discovery. He had not provided a reason why he was unable to complete the discovery related to that fact except to say that he chose to initiate discovery with other defendants first. Finally, plaintiff now had six additional months to complete discovery rather than requested sixty days. Accordingly, plaintiff's Rule 56(f) motion (docket no. 36) is DENIED. Plaintiff is

1

Rule 56(f), entitled "When Affidavits are Unavailable," states: If a party opposing the motion shows by affidavit that, for specified reasons, it cannot present facts essential to justify its opposition, the court may: (1) deny the motion; (2) order a continuance to enable affidavits to be obtained, depositions to be taken, or other discovery to be undertaken; or (3) issue any other just order.

Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(f).
Order Denying Rule 56(f) Request and Extending Time to File Opposition to Motions for Summary Judgment 2 P:\pro-se\sj.rmw\cr.06\Pay t on649eot

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

granted thirty (30) days from the filing date of this order to oppose the Novato Defendants' and the Individual Defendants' motions for summary judgment. Plaintiff must file a separate opposition brief with respect to each motion for summary judgment. No further extensions will be granted except under the most compelling circumstances. Defendants must file their replies fifteen (15) days thereafter. The motions for summary judgment shall be deemed submitted as of the date the reply briefs are due. No hearing will be held on the motions unless the court so orders at a later date. IT IS SO ORDERED.

4/24/09 DATED: _________________

RONALD M. WHYTE United States District Judge

Order Denying Rule 56(f) Request and Extending Time to File Opposition to Motions for Summary Judgment 3 P:\pro-se\sj.rmw\cr.06\Pay t on649eot