Panah v. State of California Dept. of Corrections and Rehabilitation et al

Filing 200

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEFING; STRIKING SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEFING; DENYING MOTION FOR DISCOVERY; GRANTING MOTION TO FILE UNDER SEAL by Judge Beth Labson Freeman. (tshS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/21/2020)Any non-CM/ECF Participants have been served by First Class Mail to the addresses of record listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

HOOMAN PANAH, an individual,
Plaintiff,

12

v.

13
14
15
16

STATE OF CALIFORNIA DEPT. OF
CORRECTIONS AND
REHABILITATION, et al.,
Defendants.

17

Case No. 14-00166 BLF (PR)
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR
EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE
SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEFING;
STRIKING SUPPLEMENTAL
BRIEFING; DENYING MOTION
FOR DISCOVERY; GRANTING
MOTION TO FILE UNDER SEAL
(Docket Nos. 171, 185, 187)

18
19

Plaintiff, an inmate on death row at California’s San Quentin State Prison

20

(“SQSP”), filed the instant pro se civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging

21

unconstitutional acts by SQSP correctional officers. The Court addresses several pending

22

matters below.

23
24
25

DISCUSSION
A.

Motion for Extension of Time to File Supplemental Briefing

26

On February 5, 2020, the Defendants filed a motion to dismiss. Dkt. No. 163. On

27

March 18, 2020, Plaintiff filed opposition with exhibits, totaling 90 pages in length, Dkt.

28

No. 177, and then a notice of errata on March 23, 2020, to make corrections to his

1

opposition, Dkt. No. 184. Defendants filed a reply on March 26, 2020. Dkt. No. 179.

2

Then on March 31, 2020, Plaintiff filed a supplemental briefing, construing his recent

3

receipt of the Court’s order granting him an extension of time, Dkt. No. 176, as license to

4

do so. Dkt. No. 181. He again filed additional arguments in support of his opposition

5

brief with his response to discovery on April 9, 2020. Dkt. No. 182.

6

Then on April 30, 2020, Plaintiff filed a request for a stay on the ruling of

7

Defendants’ motion to dismiss due to the global pandemic, seeking ninety days to submit a

8

supplemental opposition. Dkt. No. 185. Defendants oppose the motion, asserting that

9

Plaintiff not only has already filed an 87-page opposition, but filed several additional
papers thereafter. Dkt. No. 186, citing Dkt. Nos. 177, 181, 182. Plaintiff asserts in his

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

reply to Defendants’ opposition that he should be given more “breathing room” as a pro se

12

litigant, that Defendants’ evidence is not credible, and that he needs more time to gather

13

more supporting cases. Dkt. No. 189.

14

The Court finds no good cause to grant Plaintiff’s motion. Defendants’ motion to

15

dismiss became submitted before prisons began to adjust and limit programs due to

16

COVID-19, and Plaintiff made no indication in his initial opposition or supplementals filed

17

through April 9, 2020, that he was unable to prepare adequate papers. Plaintiff may not

18

argue now that changed circumstances should delay ruling on a matter that became

19

submitted before such challenges arose. Furthermore, Plaintiff has already been granted

20

much leeway in this matter, including being permitted to file excessively lengthy briefs

21

and exhibits, and his pro se status simply does not entitle him to endless briefing. With

22

respect to the credibility of Defendants’ evidence, Plaintiff had ample opportunity to

23

challenge it in his original opposition. Dkt. No. 177. Lastly, Plaintiff provides no

24

explanation as to why the cases he relies on in his 63-page long opposition brief is

25

inadequate such that he needs to provide more cases. Based on the foregoing, the Court

26

finds no good cause to allow Plaintiff to submit additional briefing on Defendants’ motion

27

to dismiss. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion for an extension of time and stay is DENIED.

28

2

1

Dkt. No. 185.
Furthermore, the Local Rules provide that once a reply is filed, “no additional

2
3

memoranda, papers or letters may be filed without prior Court approval” except to file an

4

objection to new evidence submitted in the reply or to bring to the Court’s attention a

5

relevant judicial opinion published after the date the opposition or reply was filed. Civil

6

L.R. 7-3(d)(1), (2). An objection to reply evidence must be filed and served not more than

7

10 days after the reply was filed. Id. The Court notes that Plaintiff filed several

8

supplemental responses and rebuttals on June 9, 2020, June 24, 2020, and August 7, 2020,

9

which is long after the 10-day period had expired after Defendants filed their reply on
March 26, 2020. Dkt. Nos. Dkt. Nos. 189, 190, 191, 193, 198. Nor did Plaintiff seek and

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

obtain prior Court approval before filing these additional briefs, and his motion for

12

extension of time to do so has been denied. See supra at 2. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s

13

supplemental responses and rebuttals filed on June 9, 2020, June 24, and August 17, 2020,

14

shall be STRICKEN as unpermitted sur-replies. Dkt. Nos. 189, 190, 191, 193, 198.

15

Defendants’ motion to dismiss is deemed submitted, and no further briefing shall be

16

accepted on the matter unless by court order.

17

B.

18

Motion for Discovery
On May 26, 2020, Plaintiff filed a “notice of motion and motion for discovery,”

19

which includes a copy of a letter dated May 12, 2020, to Defendants’ counsel requesting

20

additional discovery. Dkt. No. 187 at 2. On May 29, 2020, Defendants filed a response to

21

the motion, stating that Plaintiff served them with a request for production of documents

22

on May 20, 2020. Dkt. No. 188. Defendants assert that they have thirty-three days to

23

respond, and therefore Plaintiff’s motion to compel is premature. Id. In reply, Plaintiff

24

asserts that his discovery request includes those he previously requested in a prior motion

25

to compel. Dkt. No. 192, citing to Dkt. No. 158. However, the Court granted Defendants’

26

motion to defer briefing on that motion to compel until after the Court decides their motion

27

to dismiss and for sanctions, and stayed briefing. Dkt. No. 168. Plaintiff may not

28

3

1

circumvent that order by essentially filing another motion to compel. Accordingly,

2

Plaintiff’s motion for discovery is DENIED as premature with respect to new requests, and

3

without prejudice with regards to the old requests pending the Court’s consideration of

4

Defendants pending motions.

5

C.

6
7

Motion to File Under Seal
Plaintiff filed a motion to file under seal documents containing private mental-

health records. Dkt. No. 171. Good cause appearing, the motion is GRANTED.

8

CONCLUSION

9

For the foregoing reasons, the Court orders as follows:

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

1.

Plaintiff’s motion for extension of time to file additional supplemental

12

briefing is DENIED. Dkt. No. 185. The sur-replies that were filed under Docket Nos.

13

189, 190, 191, 193, 198 shall be STRICKEN.

14

2.

Plaintiff’ s motion for discovery is DENIED as premature and without

15

prejudice pending the Court’s consideration of Defendants’ motions for sanctions and to

16

dismiss. Dkt. No. 187.

17
18

3.

Plaintiff’s motion to file private health documents under seal is GRANTED.

Dkt. No. 171.

19

This order terminates Docket Nos. 171, 185, and 187.

20

IT IS SO ORDERED

21

Dated: __August 21, 2020_____

________________________
BETH LABSON FREEMAN
United States District Judge

22
23
24
25
26

Order Addressing Pending Mots.
PRO-SE\BLF\CR.14\00166.Panah_disc&surreply

27
28

4