Hastings v. Inmate Services Corporation

Filing 103

OPINION AND ORDER denying without prejudice 73 Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment; denying without prejudice 91 , 101 Motions in Limine. An Amended Case Management and Scheduling Order will be entered separately. Signed by Judge John E. Steele on 4/15/2019. (BLW)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
FORT MYERS DIVISION
DAVID HASTINGS,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No:

2:17-cv-145-FtM-99UAM

INMATE SERVICES CORPORATION,
Defendant.

OPINION AND ORDER
This matter comes before the Court on defendant’s Motion for
Summary Judgment (Doc. #73) filed on January 31, 2019.

Plaintiff

pro se David Hastings filed a Response in Opposition (Doc. #85) on
March 11, 2019.

For the reasons set forth below, the Motion is

denied without prejudice as premature.
I.
This is a civil rights and negligence case in which plaintiff,
who

is

currently

incarcerated,

brings

claims

against

Inmate

Services Corporation (ISC), a company hired to extradite plaintiff
from Orange County, California to Florida.

Plaintiff brings three

counts - negligence, negligent hiring/retention, and liability
under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 1

1

Plaintiff was
Complaint was filed.

(Doc. #1.)

represented

by

counsel

at

the

time

the

In plaintiff’s Response to the Motion for Summary Judgment,
he contends that there remains additional discovery that is needed
to adequately respond to the Motion; therefore, the Court will
construe the response as a statement under Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 56(d).

The Court agrees with plaintiff that defendant’s

Motion is premature and need not reach the merits of the subsequent
arguments.
II.
Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that
summary judgment is appropriate if a “movant shows that there is
no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is
entitled to judgment as a matter of law.”

Fed. R. Civ. P. 56.

A

party asserting that a fact cannot be genuinely disputed must
support the assertion with materials in the record, including
depositions,

documents,

other materials.

affidavits,

interrogatory

answers,

or

Fed. R. Civ. P. 56 (c)(1)(A).

Rule 56(d) expressly provides that the Court may deny a motion
for summary judgment if a non-movant shows by affidavit that “it
cannot present essential facts to justify its opposition.”
R. Civ. P. 56(d).

Fed.

However, the Eleventh Circuit has held that the

filing of an affidavit is not required to invoke the protection of
the rule.

Snook v. Tr. Co. of Ga. Bank of Savannah, N.A., 859

F.2d 865, 871 (11th Cir. 1988).

The party opposing the motion for

summary judgment bears the burden of alerting the Court to any

- 2 -

outstanding discovery, but a written representation by the party’s
lawyer still falls within the spirit of the rule, and “[f]orm is
not to be exalted over fair procedures.”

Id. (citation omitted).

Rule 56 requires adequate time for discovery prior to entry
of summary judgment.
(1986).

Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322

Entry of summary judgment before the nonmoving party has

had time to conduct discovery constitutes reversible error.
WSB-TV v. Lee, 842 F.2d 1266, 1269 (11th Cir. 1988).

See

A party has

the right to challenge the factual evidence presented by the moving
party by conducting sufficient discovery so as to determine if he
may furnish opposing affidavits.

Snook, 859 F.2d at 870.

The

Eleventh Circuit has cautioned that “summary judgment may only be
decided upon an adequate record.”

Id.

See also Jones v. City of

Columbus, Ga., 120 F.3d 248, 253 (11th Cir. 1997) (“The law in
this circuit is clear: the party opposing a motion for summary
judgment should be permitted an adequate opportunity to complete
discovery prior to the consideration of the motion.”).
III.
Here, plaintiff states that he has requested several times
through discovery that defendant produce a copy of the company’s
policies and procedures to support his civil rights claim.

He

additionally asks this Court to “reserve judgment” on the negligent
hiring

and

retention

claim

because

the

parties

are

still

negotiating a date for the deposition of the owner of ISC, Randy

- 3 -

Cagle, Jr., and other witnesses.

(Doc. #85, p. 15.)

Plaintiff

states that defendant has also not yet produced other discovery
that it previously represented to the Magistrate Judge that it was
committed to produce for the relevant time period (see Doc. #71,
p. 5), including complaints submitted against ISC and any reports
of suspension of ISC’s business license.
information

would

be

material

to

The Court sees how such

plaintiff’s

claims

and

to

challenge ISC’s statement made in its Motion for Summary Judgment
that “[t]o date, the Plaintiff has not provided any evidence to
support his allegations that there was any negligent hiring done
on the part of ISC or in its retention of its drivers.”

(Doc.

#73, p. 14.)
The Court understands that plaintiff’s incarceration makes it
difficult to conduct discovery, however, an opportunity to conduct
depositions and other discovery for the purposes of adequately
responding to a motion for summary judgment must be provided.
Therefore, as a precautionary matter, and given plaintiff’s pro se
status 2 , the Court will deny the Motion for Summary Judgment
without prejudice, extend discovery, and continue the remaining
deadlines. 3

The Court will also deny the Motions in Limine without

prejudice to be refiled by the new deadline, if appropriate.

2

Because petitioner is proceeding pro se, the Court construes
all of his filings liberally. See Hughes v. Lott, 350 F.3d 1157,
1160 (11th Cir. 2003).
3

This will also allow plaintiff time to file any Motions to

- 4 -

Accordingly, it is hereby
ORDERED AND ADJUDGED:
1.

Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. #73) is

DENIED without prejudice
2.

An Amended Case Management and Scheduling Order will be

entered separately.
3.

Defendant’s Motion in Limine (Doc. #91) and Plaintiff’s

Motion in Limine (Doc. #101) are denied without prejudice.
DONE and ORDERED at Fort Myers, Florida, this __15th__ day of
April, 2019.

Copies:
Plaintiff
Counsel of Record

Compel.

- 5 -