Castle v. Sepulveda

Filing 26

ORDER by Judge Lucy H. Koh denying 24 Motion for continuance; granting 25 Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply re 24 MOTION Requesting theCourt to Put Defendant Summary Judgment Motion on Hold and Allow Plaintiff to Procee d with Discovery, 25 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 20 MOTION for Summary Judgment ; Supporting Memorandum of Points and Authorities Responses due by 4/23/2013. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate/Proof of Service) (mpb, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/26/2013)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 SY LEE CASTLE, 12 13 Plaintiff, vs. 14 M. SEPULVEDA, 15 Defendant. 16 ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) No. C 12-2193 LHK (PR) ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST FOR CONTINUANCE (Docket Nos. 24, 25) 17 Plaintiff, a California state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed a civil rights action under 42 18 U.S.C. § 1983, against Dr. M. Sepulveda. In his complaint, Plaintiff alleges that Defendant was 19 deliberately indifferent to his serious medical needs. On February 19, 2013, Defendant filed a 20 motion for summary judgment. On March 4, 2013, Plaintiff filed a motion for continuance under 21 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 56(d). On March 11, 2013, Plaintiff filed a motion for 22 extension of time to file an opposition to Defendant’s motion for summary judgment. For the 23 reasons stated below, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s request for an extension of time to file his 24 opposition to defendant’s motion for summary judgment, but DENIES it to the extent that he 25 requests staying this proceeding to seek further discovery pursuant to Rule 56(d). 26 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(d) is a device for litigants to avoid summary 27 judgment when the non-movant needs to discover affirmative evidence necessary to oppose the 28 motion. See Garrett v. San Francisco, 818 F.2d 1515, 1518 (9th Cir. 1987). In making a Rule Order Granting in Part and Denying in Part Plaintiff’s Request for Continuance G:\PRO-SE\SJ.LHK\CR.12\Castle193r56.wpd 1 56(d) motion, a party opposing summary judgment must make clear “what information is sought 2 and how it would preclude summary judgment.” Margolis v. Ryan, 140 F.3d 850, 853 (9th Cir. 3 1998); see, e.g., id. at 853-54 (district court correctly denied motion for continuance to engage in 4 further discovery under Rule 56(d) where plaintiff did not provide any basis or factual support 5 for his assertions that further discovery would lead to the facts and testimony he described, and 6 his assertions appeared based on nothing more than “wild speculation”). Rule 56(d) requires that 7 the requesting party show (1) it has set forth in affidavit form the specific facts it hopes to elicit 8 from further discovery, (2) the facts sought exist, and (3) the sought-after facts are essential to 9 oppose summary judgment. Family Home and Finance Center, Inc. v. Federal Home Loan 10 11 Mortgage Corp., 525 F.3d 822, 827 (9th Cir. 2008). Here, Plaintiff requests an indefinite extension of time in which to conduct discovery and 12 oppose Defendant’s motion for summary judgment. Plaintiff has been permitted to conduct 13 discovery from the moment Defendant waived service on September 26, 2012. Plaintiff does not 14 demonstrate how any “additional discovery would [] reveal[] specific facts precluding summary 15 judgment,” see Tatum v. City and County of S.F., 441 F.3d 1090, 1101 (9th Cir. 2006), or how 16 the sought-after facts are essential to oppose summary judgment, Family Home and Finance 17 Center, Inc., 525 F.3d at 827. Nor does he specify what facts he hopes to elicit. Thus, Plaintiff 18 is not entitled to a continuance for the purpose of conducting additional discovery pursuant to 19 Rule 56(d). 20 However, due to the fact that Plaintiff’s opposition is already overdue, the Court will 21 GRANT Plaintiff a twenty-eight-day continuance in which to file his opposition to the motion 22 for summary judgment. Plaintiff is directed to file an opposition to Defendant’s motion for 23 summary judgment no later than twenty-eight days from the filing date of this order. 24 Defendant shall file a reply fourteen days thereafter. 25 IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED: 3/26/13 26 27 LUCY H. KOH United States District Judge 28 Order Granting in Part and Denying in Part Plaintiff’s Request for Continuance 2 P:\pro-se\sj.lhk\cr.10\Gonzalez654deny56

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?