Brown v. Nooth et al

Filing 87

ORDER: Plaintiff's Motion to Request Granting of TRO and Preliminary Injunction 61 is DENIED. Plaintiff's Motion for an Order Compelling Discovery 65 is DENIED. Plaintiff's Motion to Reconsider Order 82 is DENIED. Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment (#30) having been fully briefed by the parties, it is hereby taken UNDER ADVISEMENT this date. Signed on 7/29/2009 by Judge Anna J. Brown. (See formal Order, 4-pages) (ecp)

FILW09 JLl30 0861lSlC-<RP

I N THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON CHARLES N. BROWN, C i v i l No. Plaintiff, ORDER
08-621~BR

v.
MARK NOOTH, e t a l . , Defendants. BROWN, J u d g e . Plaintiff, an inmate at the Deer Ridge Correctional

I n s t i t u t i o n , brings t h i s c i v i l r i g h t s a c t i o n pursuant t o 42 U.S.C.
§

1983 pro see

Currently before the Court are several matters.

I.

P l . a i n t i f f ' s M o t i o n t o R e q u e s t G r a n t i n g o f TRO a n d P r e l . i m i n a r y Injunction

When submitted

he a

filed Motion

this for

action

on

May

21,

2008, Order

Plaintiff and for

Temporary

Restraining

Preliminary Injunction.

On J u n e 4 , 2 0 0 8 , t h i s C o u r t i s s u e d ' a n
inter alia,

Order denying P l a i n t i f f ' s Motion because, 1 - ORDER -

Plaintiff
I
!

did n o t p r e s e n t a

certificate of service or a

s h o w i n g o f 'why The denial
~as

notice to the Defendants should not be required.

without prejudice to P l a i n t i f f ' s right to r e - f i l e the motion upon curing the deficiencies noted. P l a i n t i f f ' s c u r r e n t M o t i o n t o R e q u e s t G r a n t i n g o f TRO a n d Preliminary Injunction suffers from the same deficiency.

Plaintiff failed to

serve the

current motion or the original

motion upon Defendants. DENIED.
II.

Accordingly, P l a i n t i f f ' s Motion (#61) i s

P l a i n t i f f ' s MOtion for an Order Compelling Discovery

Plaintiff seeks an order compelling Defendants to respond to requests for production of documents and requests for

interrogatories fifty-five

submitted to of

Defendants. and

Defendants provided answered
seve~al

pages

documents

interrogatories. on the basis

Defendants objected to other requests, however, they were vague and were not reasonably

that

calculated to lead to discovery of admissible evidence. Upon c a r e f u l r e v i e w o f P l a i n t i , f f ' s r e q u e s t s a n d D e f e n d a n t s ' objections thereto, the Court denies Plaintiff's motion. to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26{b) (I), parties may obtain Pursuant discovery

regarding any matter relevant to the claim or defense of any party. "Relevant information need not be admissible at the t r i a l

i f the discovery appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence." 2 - ORDER F e d . R. C i v . P . 2 6 { b ) ( 1 ) . '

Plaintiff a l l e g e s D e f e n d a n t s w e r e d e l i b e r a t e l y i n d i f f e r e n t i n f a i l i n g to protect him from assault by another inmate. He a l l $ g e s

he informed Defendants he was not safe i n h i s housing u n i t , t h a t Defendants failed to take action to protect him, and that during the subsequent assault, failed to take action quickly enough. P l a i n t i f f ' s numerous discovery requests pertaining to general information counter about the Department are not of Corrections' to efforts to

security

threats

relevant

issue

whether

Defendants were deliberately indifferent in this particular case. As such, he i s not e n t i t l e d t o an order compelling Defendants t o r e s p o n d , a n d P l a i n t i f f ' s M o t i o n ( # 6 5 ) i s DENIED.
I I I . P l a i n t i f f ' s Motion to Reconsider Order
I

Plaintiff seeks an extension of time to f i l e a Supplemental B r i e f i n opposition t o Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment. Plaintiff's stated reason is the need to review responses to the discovery requests which were the subject of his Motion to Compel, discussed above. Compel, his Because the Court denies P l a i n t i f f ' s Motion to for an extension of time to file a

request

Supplemental Brief i s rendered moot. ( # 8 2 ) i s DENIED. 1

Accordingly,

the mot:ion

l M o r e o v e r , t h e C o u r t n o t e s P l a i n t i f f f i l e d a n extensiv~ r e s p o n s e t o D e f e n d a n t s ' M o t i o n f o r S u m m a r y J u d g m e n t , a n d t h e Couri;: had previously cautioned the p a r t i e s t h a t no further extensions time would be forthcoming.

0+

3 - ORDER -

IV.

D e f e n d a n t s ' M o t i o n f o r Summary J u d g m e n t

Defendants'

Motion f o r Summary Judgment

(#30)

having been

f u l l y b r i e f e d b y t h e p a r t i e s , i t i s h e r e b y t a k e n UNDER ADVISEMENT this date. I T I S SO ORDERED. DATED t h i s

~t1 ~ a y o f

July, 2009.

~

United States District Judge

4 - ORDER -