Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_17-cv-01128/USCOURTS-caed-1_17-cv-01128-10/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

RAYMOND ALFORD BRADFORD,

Plaintiff,

v.

C. OGBUEHI, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:17-cv-01128-SAB (PC)

ORDER DENYING, WITHOUT PREJUDICE, 

PLAINTIFF’S EIGHT MOTIONS FOR 

SUMMARY JUDGMENT AS PREMATURE

(ECF Nos. 44, 45, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54)

Plaintiff Raymond Alford Bradford is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma 

pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c), 

Plaintiff and Defendants Usher, Rimbach, German, Ulit, Spaeth, and Sao have all consented to 

the jurisdiction of the United States Magistrate Judge. (ECF Nos. 8, 34.)

This action currently proceeds on Plaintiff’s claim against Defendants Usher, Rimbach, 

German, Ulit, Spaeth, and Sao, in their individual capacities, for violation of the Eighth 

Amendment based on Plaintiff’s allegations related to Valley Fever. (ECF No. 21.)

On December 23, 2019, Defendants filed a motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s first amended 

complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) on the ground that Defendants are 

entitled to qualified immunity. (ECF No. 36.) On January 2, 2020, Plaintiff filed a “motion to 

amend civil complaint to add a violation of Fed. R. Civ. P. 9(b).” (ECF No. 38.) Then, on 

January 27, 2020, Plaintiff filed a motion to file a second amended complaint under Rule 9(b). 

(ECF No. 56.)

Case 1:17-cv-01128-SAB Document 58 Filed 02/20/20 Page 1 of 3
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

Currently before the Court are Plaintiff’s eight motions for summary judgment, filed on 

January 21, 2020 and January 27, 2020. (ECF Nos. 44, 45, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54.)

On January 28, 2020, Defendants filed an opposition to Plaintiff’s motions for summary 

judgment. (ECF No. 57.) Plaintiff has not filed a reply, and his time to do so has expired. 

Therefore, Plaintiff’s eight motions for summary judgment have been submitted for decision. 

Local Rule 230(l).

“Although [Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56] allows a motion for summary judgment to 

be filed at the commencement of an action, in many cases the motion will be premature until the 

nonmovant has had time to file a responsive pleading or other pretrial proceedings have been 

had.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56, Advisory Committee’s Notes (2010 Amendments, Note to Subdivision 

(b)). Indeed, many courts have denied pre-answer and pre-discovery motions for summary 

judgment as premature despite technical compliance with the timing provisions of Rule 56. See

Williams v. Yuan Chen, No. S-10-1292 CKD P, 2011 WL 4354533, at * 3 (E.D. Cal. Sept. 16, 

2011) (denying plaintiff’s summary judgment motion as premature where defendant had not yet 

filed an answer and the court had not issued a discovery order); Moore v. Hubbard, No. CIV-S06-2187 FCD EFB P, 2009 WL 688897, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 13, 2009) (recommending that 

plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment be denied as premature where “discovery has not yet 

begun, defendants have not yet filed an answer and the court has yet to issue a discovery and 

scheduling order”).

Here, although Plaintiff’s eight motions for summary judgment technically meet the 

timing requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(b), Plaintiff’s summary judgment

motions are premature. As it stands, given that Plaintiff’s two motions for leave to file a second 

amended complaint are still pending, the pleadings in this case are not yet set. Further, no 

defendant has filed an answer, the Court has not yet issued a discovery and scheduling order, and 

discovery has not yet begun. 

///

///

///

Case 1:17-cv-01128-SAB Document 58 Filed 02/20/20 Page 2 of 3
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

3

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s eight motions for summary judgment, (ECF Nos. 44, 45, 49, 50, 

51, 52, 53, 54), are HEREBY DENIED, without prejudice to re-filing at the appropriate stage of 

this litigation.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 20, 2020 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:17-cv-01128-SAB Document 58 Filed 02/20/20 Page 3 of 3