Quintero et al v. Palmer et al

Filing 106

MINUTE ORDER IN CHAMBERS of the Honorable Magistrate Judge Valerie P. Cooke, on 3/17/2015, granting Plaintiff's 89 , 90 , and 97 Motions to Withdraw and striking Plaintiff's 84 , 86 , and 87 motions; denying P laintiff's 99 Motion for a Deadline Extension; denying Plaintiff's 88 Motion to Compel to Allow Plaintiff to Contact Prisoner Kevin Pope. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - KR) Modified on 3/17/2015 to clarify (KR).

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEVADA

JOHN QUINTERO,

3:13-cv-00008-MMD-VPC

Plaintiff,
MINUTES OF THE COURT
v.
JACK PALMER, et al.,
Defendants.

PRESENT:

March 17, 2015

THE HONORABLE VALERIE P. COOKE, U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE

DEPUTY CLERK:

LISA MANN

REPORTER: NONE APPEARING

COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF(S): NONE APPEARING
COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT(S): NONE APPEARING
MINUTE ORDER IN CHAMBERS:
Before the court are several motions and corresponding papers: first, plaintiff’s motion to
compel production of documents (#84) and his motion to withdraw the same (#89); second,
plaintiff’s motion for an order to show cause (#86) and his motion to withdraw the same (#90);
third, yet another motion by plaintiff to compel defendants’ production of documents (#87) and
his motion to withdraw the same (#97); fourth, plaintiff’s motion to extend time for his filing of a
fourth amended complaint (#99); and finally, a motion to compel defendants to allow plaintiff to
contact fellow inmate Kevin Pope (#88), which defendants oppose (#91).
First, the motions to withdraw (#s 89, 90, 97) are GRANTED. Plaintiff’s motions at
docket numbers 84, 86, and 87 are hereby STRICKEN.
Second, plaintiff’s motion for a deadline extension (#99) is DENIED as moot. Plaintiff
filed his fourth amended complaint (#105) on March 17, 2015 and it shall be considered timely
filed.
Finally, plaintiff’s motion to compel defendants to allow him to contact inmate Pope
(#88) lacks merit. Plaintiff argues that Pope has “knowledge of the . . . unconstitutional
conditions” about which he brings suit, and plaintiff thus desires to obtain Pope’s affidavit in
anticipation of defendants’ forthcoming motion for summary judgment.

The argument is unavailing. At the summary judgment stage, the court does not weigh
the credibility of the evidence or determine its truth. Accordingly, assuming that defendants
meet their burden under Rule 56, such an affidavit will not strengthen plaintiff’s ability to
demonstrate that a genuine dispute of fact exists. Based upon plaintiff’s characterization, Pope’s
statements will do little more than buttress his own descriptions of the conditions. To the extent
plaintiff wishes to support his opposition with testimony regarding those conditions, he may
prepare and submit his own affidavit.
Two additional reasons counsel against granting the motion. First, as defendants
correctly observe, the discovery period in this case is closed. Plaintiff’s motion is, therefore,
untimely, for it seeks to discover evidence—namely, the testimony of Pope. Second, legitimate
penological objectives disfavor allowing plaintiff to contact another inmate. As defendants
argue, plaintiff has not followed NDOC rules by which he might be granted permission to
contact Pope, notwithstanding security and safety concerns. Plaintiff did not reply to defendants’
opposition to indicate that he has, in fact, followed such procedures. For these reasons,
plaintiff’s motion (#88) is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
LANCE S. WILSON, CLERK
By:

/s/
Deputy Clerk