Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_02-cv-06001/USCOURTS-caed-1_02-cv-06001-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

G. FUNTANILLA, Jr. ,

Plaintiff,

v.

D. TRISTAN, et. al.,

Defendants.

 /

CV F 02 6001 OWW LJO P 

ORDER STRIKING MOTION FOR

SUMMARY JUDGMENT AS DUPLICATIVE

(Doc. 134.) 

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS

REQUEST FOR AN EXTENSION OF TIME

(Doc. 139) 

Gregorio Funtanilla, Jr. (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma

pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 

A. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

Plaintiff filed the instant action on August 16, 2002. The Court found cognizable failure

to protect, cruel and unusual punishment, due process, deliberate indifference to a serious

medical need and access to the Courts claims. The Complaint names Means, Hanse, Medrano,

Thomas, Vella, Yates, Martinez, Atkinson and Gonzales as Defendants. 

On February 28, 2003, Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint. (Doc. 26.) Plaintiff

filed a Second Amended Complaint on March 10, 2003. (Doc. 36.) The Court found the

Case 1:02-cv-06001-AWI -GSA Document 143 Filed 06/30/05 Page 1 of 4
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

Second Amended Complaint stated a cognizable failure to protect claim against Defendant

Means, a cognizable Eighth Amendment claim for cruel and unusual punishment against

Defendants Hanse, Medrano, and Thomas, a cognizable access to the courts claim against

Defendants Gonzales and Atkinson, a cognizable due process claim against Defendants Vella,

Means, Yates, Tristan, Bloxom, Marshall, Godin, Walker and Yamamoto, a cognizable claim for

deliberate indifference to a serious medical need against Medrano, Martinez and Thomas, a

cognizable Eighth Amendment claim for deprivation of exercise against Defendants Vella,

Brown, and Galaza and a cognizable retaliation claim against Defendants B. Streeter, V. 

Castillo, J. Buckley and Lisa Salinas. 

On February 13, 2003, Plaintiff filed his first Motion for Summary Judgment. (Doc. 20.) 

The Court issued Findings and Recommendations that the Motion be denied as premature on

February 28, 2003, and the District Court adopted the Recommendations on April 22, 2003.

(Docs. 28, 43.)

Plaintiff filed a second Motion for Summary Judgment on May 13, 2003. (Doc. 46.)

The Court issued Findings and Recommendations on September 24, 2003, also on the ground

that it was premature. (Doc. 51.) The District Court adopted the Findings and

Recommendations on November 18, 2003. 

Plaintiff, however, filed a third Motion for Summary Judgment on November 3, 2003. 

(Doc. 60.) 

A scheduling Order issued on October 20, 2004, setting forth a discovery deadline of

April 20, 2005, an Amended Pleadings deadline of May 20, 2005, and a dispositive motion

deadline of June 20, 2005. (Doc. 110.) 

Plaintiff filed a fourth Motion for Summary Judgment on September 21, 2004. (Doc. 

107.) 

On February 10, 2005, Defendants moved for involuntary dismissal of the action.

A fifth Motion for Summary Judgment was filed by Plaintiff on April 29, 2005. (Doc. 

134.) 

On June 15, 2005, Defendants filed a Request for an Extension of Time to file an

Case 1:02-cv-06001-AWI -GSA Document 143 Filed 06/30/05 Page 2 of 4
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1Although the dispositive motion deadline expired on June 20, 2005, application of the mailbox rule to

Plaintiff’s Motion renders it timely filed. 

2The Court notes that the Motion for Summary Judgment filed on September 21, 2004, is also identical to

that filed on May 13, 2003 (Doc. 46), which was denied as prematurely filed on November 18, 2003. (Docs. 51,

66.) 

3

Opposition to the Motions for Summary Judgment and to file a Motion for Summary Judgment. 

(Doc. 139.) 

Plaintiff filed his sixth Motion for Summary Judgment on June 24, 2005.1 (Doc. 141.) 

The third, fourth, fifth and sixth Motions for Summary Judgment are currently pending

before the Court. 

A. FIFTH MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT 

As noted above, Plaintiff filed his fifth Motion for Summary Judgment on April 29, 2005. 

(Doc. 134.) This Motion seeks summary judgment against Defendants Medrano, Martinez and

Thomas and concerns Plaintiff’s deliberate indifference to serious medical needs in violation of

the Eighth Amendment claim. 

The Court has examined closely all of the Motions for Summary Judgment filed by

Plaintiff and finds that the Motion filed on April 29, 2005, is an identical photocopy of the fourth

Motion for Summary filed on September 21, 2004.2 (Doc. 107.) Accordingly, because the

pleading is duplicative of a previously filed and currently pending motion, the Court will Order

that the Motion be STRICKEN from the record. Plaintiff, therefore, has the following Motions

for Summary Judgment pending. 

Motion for Summary Judgment filed on November 3, 2003, against Defendants Vella,

Means and Yates for violation of Due Process on the grounds of Plaintiff’s SHU retention. 

Motion for Summary Judgment filed on September 21, 2004, against Defendants

Medrano, Martinez, and Thomas for deliberate indifference to a serious medical need in violation

of the Eighth Amendment. 

Motion for Summary Judgment filed on June 24, 2005, against Defendants Buckley and

Streeter for retaliation. 

Plaintiff is forewarned that the repeated filing of duplicative motions and/or Motions

Case 1:02-cv-06001-AWI -GSA Document 143 Filed 06/30/05 Page 3 of 4
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

4

without merit can be considered action taken by Plaintiff in bad faith, vexatiously, wantonly, or

for oppressive reasons and may result in the imposition of sanctions, up to and including

dismissal, pursuant to the inherent authority of the court. Chambers v. NASCO, Inc. 501 U.S.

32, 111 S.Ct. 2123 (1991)

B. DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME 

Defendant’s moved for an extension of time to file a dispositive motion and also for the

filing of an Opposition to the pending Motions for Summary Judgment filed by Plaintiff. Given

the numerous and repeated filings by Plaintiff and considering the factors set forth in Defendant

Counsel’s declaration, the Court finds good cause for granting Defendants an extension of time

of forty-five days to file their Oppositions to the pending Motions for Summary Judgment and to

file a dispositive Motion. 

C. CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Accordingly, the Court HEREBY ORDERS: 

1. The Motion for Summary Judgment filed on April 29, 2005, (Doc. 134) is

STRICKEN from the record as it is duplicative of the Motion for Summary

Judgment filed on September 21, 2004;

2. Defendants Motion for an Extension of time is GRANTED. Any dispositive

motion and Oppositions to pending Motions for Summary Judgment are due

within FORTY-FIVE DAYS of the date of service of this Order. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 29, 2005 /s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill 

b9ed48 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:02-cv-06001-AWI -GSA Document 143 Filed 06/30/05 Page 4 of 4