Vallery v. Brown et al

Filing 131

ORDER overruling Plaintiff's Objections to Magistrate Judge's Discovery Orders and denying his 128 Motion to postpone Summary Judgement proceedings. Signed by Judge Dana M. Sabraw on 2/14/12. (All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service)(lao)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

RAYNARD VALLERY,

Case No. 08cv95-DMS (RBB)

12
Plaintiff,

13

ORDER OVERRULING
PLAINTIFF’S OBJECTIONS TO
MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S
DISCOVERY ORDERS AND
DENYING HIS MOTION TO
POSTPONE SUMMARY
JUDGMENT PROCEEDINGS

vs.
14
15
16

JAMES BROWN, et al.,

17
Defendant.

18
19

Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed a complaint for violation of his constitutional

20

rights while incarcerated at Calipatria State Prison. He alleges he was sexually assaulted by

21

Correctional Officer Brown, while his supervisor, Correctional Sergeant Dee, watched, and that other

22

Defendants engaged in a cover up of the misconduct. On June 17, 2011, Appeals Coordinator Bell,

23

Warden Bourland and Correctional Lieutenant Stratton filed a motion for summary judgment,1 which

24

was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Ruben B. Brooks for a report and recommendation

25

pursuant to Civil Local Rule 72.3. On January 13, 2012, Judge Brooks issued the Order Denying

26

Plaintiff’s Motion for Precluding Use of Deposition Testimony and Report and Recommendation

27

Granting in Part and Denying in Part Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment. Pending before

28
1

Defendants Brown and Dee did not move for summary judgment.
-1-

08cv95

1

the Court are Plaintiff’s Objections/Motion to Postpone Summary Judgment Proceedings (“Motion”).

2

Plaintiff objects to Judge Brooks’ discovery orders, requests suspension of summary judgment

3

proceedings pending further discovery, and objects to the January 13 report and recommendation to

4

grant the summary judgment motion in part.

5

recommendation on Defendants’ summary judgment motion are not due until February 17, 2012.

6

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s objections to the report and recommendation are not addressed in this order.

7

For the reasons which follow, Plaintiff’s objections to the Magistrate Judge’s discovery orders are

8

OVERRULED and his motion to postpone summary judgment proceedings is DENIED.

Responses to objections to the report and

9

Because Plaintiff contended he could not properly oppose the summary judgment motion due

10

to pending discovery disputes, he was granted several extensions of time to file opposition briefs. (See

11

January 13, 2012 Order Denying Plaintiff’s Motion for Precluding Use of Deposition Testimony and

12

Report and Recommendation Granting in Part and Denying in Part Defendants’ Motion for Summary

13

Judgment (“R&R”) at 3-4.) Most recently, Plaintiff was granted leave to file a supplemental

14

opposition brief no later than December 15, 2011. (Id. at 4.) As of the January 13, 2012, Plaintiff had

15

not filed a brief and Judge Brooks issued a report and recommendation. He recommended granting

16

summary judgment as to Defendants Bell and Bourland and denying it as to Defendant Stratton.

17

Subsequently, Judge Brooks received Plaintiff’s Application to File Motion out of Time and Motion

18

to Postpone Summary Judgment Proceedings, requesting him to accept his untimely motion to

19

postpone his December 15, 2011 due date for filing a supplemental opposition based on outstanding

20

discovery issues. (Minute Order filed Jan. 19, 2012.) Because the report and recommendation had

21

already issued, the motions were denied as moot, but the order indicated Plaintiff could raise the same

22

issues with his objections to the report and recommendation. (Id.) Plaintiff has now done so.

23

Among other things, Plaintiff objects to Judge Brooks’ discovery orders. “A party may serve

24

and file objections to [a magistrate judge’s non-dispositive] order within 14 days after being served

25

with a copy. A party may not assign as error a defect in the order not timely objected to.” Fed. R.

26

Civ. Proc. 72(a). Plaintiff objects to discovery orders issued September 20, 2011, October 7, 2011 and

27
28
-2-

08cv95

1

November 23, 2011. His objections, filed February 6, 2012, are therefore OVERRULED as

2

untimely.2

3
4
5

Next, Plaintiff requests a postponement of summary judgment proceedings pending further
discovery. Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(d),

7

If a nonmovant shows by affidavit or declaration that, for specified reasons, it cannot
present facts essential to justify its opposition, the court may:
(1) defer considering the motion or deny it;
(2) allow time to obtain affidavits or declarations or to take discovery; or
(3) issue any other appropriate order.

8

To prevail on a Rule 56(d) motion, the party must show “why [he] cannot immediately provide

9

‘specific facts’ demonstrating a genuine issue of material fact” to defeat the summary judgment

10

motion. Mackey v. Pioneer Nat’l Bank, 867 F.2d 520, 524 (1989). In addition, he "must identify by

11

affidavit the specific facts that further discovery would reveal, and explain why those facts would

12

preclude summary judgment." Tatum v. City and County of San Francisco, 441 F.3d 1090, 1100 (9th

13

Cir. 2006). Plaintiff claims summary judgment would be premature given the outstanding discovery.

14

Plaintiff has not met the standard necessary to continue the summary judgment ruling because

15

he has not filed an affidavit in support of the request. Furthermore, the time for Plaintiff to oppose

16

the motion was extended several times to accommodate his need for discovery. (R&R at 3-4.)

17

Plaintiff had ample time to obtain the discovery he needed, and does not explain why he was not able

18

to accomplish it in time to file his supplemental opposition on December 15, 2011. Finally he has not

19

identified specific facts that further discovery would reveal, or explain how those facts would preclude

20

summary judgment. Plaintiff’s motion to postpone summary judgment proceedings is DENIED.

6

21
22

IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: February 14, 2012

23
HON. DANA M. SABRAW
United States District Judge

24
25
26
2

27
28

Plaintiff’s December 5, 2011 Motion to Postpone Summary Judgment Proceedings,
which did not reach the Court due to mailing difficulties (see Minute Order filed Jan. 19, 2012) did
not contain any discovery objections. (See Mot. Ex. A.) Plaintiff’s Reply to Defendants’ 11-14-11
Supplemental Response to Request for Documents, filed December 7, 2011, also does not include
objections to discovery orders.
-3-