STEELE v. CHICCHI et al

Filing 168

OPINION. Signed by Judge Mary L. Cooper on 3/4/2013. (gxh)

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

YUSEF STEELE,

CIVIL ACTION NO. 09-3551 (MLC)
O P I N I O N

Plaintiff,
v.
WARDEN CICCHI, et al.,
Defendants.

THE COURT earlier recited the procedural history of the action
in detail, insofar as it concerns the separate motions for summary
judgment filed by each of the defendants on or about June 8, 2012,
September 7, 2012, and November 8, 2012.

(See dkt. entry no. 148,

12-28-12 Op.; dkt. entry no. 136, 9-13-12 Op.; dkt. entry no. 124,
7-9-12 Order.)

Here, it is sufficient to note that the Court

denied those motions because the plaintiff, pro se prisoner Yusef
Steele, demonstrated that (1) he was entitled to certain discovery,
(2) he had not yet received that discovery, and (3) he needed that
discovery to oppose the defendants’ motions (“the Discovery
Issue”).

(See 12-28-12 Op. at 1-3; 7-9-12 Order at 1-2, 4).

See

also Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(d).
THE DEFENDANTS now move anew for relief pursuant to Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 56(a).

(Dkt. entry no. 162, DeAmicis Mot.;

dkt. entry no. 161, Masone Mot.; dkt. entry no. 160, Barth Mot.;

dkt. entry no. 159, Cicchi Mot. (collectively, “the Summary
Judgment Motions”).)

But it appears that the Discovery Issue has

not been resolved, as (1) the U.S. Marshals Service served the
subpoena at issue on non-party Speedy Bail Bonds, but (2) Speedy
Bail Bonds has not responded to the subpoena.

(See dkt. entry no.

163, Mot. to Compel & Supp. Docs. at 3-5.)
THE COURT will thus, for good cause appearing, issue a
separate order, again denying the Summary Judgment Motions without
prejudice.

The Court suggests that the defendants refrain from

moving anew for relief pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
56(a) until the Magistrate Judge has resolved the Discovery Issue.

s/ Mary L. Cooper
.
MARY L. COOPER
United States District Judge

Date:

March 4, 2013

2