Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-01516/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-01516-14/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ANTWOINE BEALER, 

 Plaintiff,

 vs.

R. BRANNUM, et al.,

 Defendants.

1:12-cv-01516-AWI-GSA-PC

 

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S RULE 56 

MOTION TO DEFER RULING ON MOTION 

FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, WITHOUT 

PREJUDICE TO RENEWAL OF THE 

MOTION WITHIN THIRTY DAYS

(Doc. 54.)

THIRTY-DAY DEADLINE

I. BACKGROUND

Antoine Bealer ("Plaintiff") is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis 

with this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On September 14, 2012, Plaintiff 

filed the Complaint commencing this action. (Doc. 1.) This case now proceeds with the Fourth 

Amended Complaint filed on March 28, 2014, against defendants Rios and Brannum for use of 

excessive force in violation of the Eighth Amendment. (Doc. 21.) 

On March 2, 2015, the court issued a Discovery and Scheduling Order establishing 

pretrial deadlines for the parties, including a deadline of November 2, 2015, to complete 

discovery, and a deadline of January 11, 2016, to file dispositive motions. (Doc. 45.) This case 

is now in the discovery phase.

Case 1:12-cv-01516-DAD-EPG Document 58 Filed 05/21/15 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

On April 13, 2015, Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment. (Doc. 52.) On 

May 11, 2015, Plaintiff filed an opposition to the motion. (Doc. 55.) On May 18, 2015, 

Defendants filed a reply. (Doc. 57.) The motion for summary judgment is pending.

On May 12, 2015, Plaintiff filed a motion for the court to defer its ruling on 

Defendants’ motion for summary judgment until the discovery phase has concluded. (Doc. 54.) 

Plaintiff’s motion to defer the court’s ruling is now before the court.

II. RULE 56 – MOTION TO DEFER RULING ON MOTION FOR SUMMARY 

JUDGMENT

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(d)(2), if Plaintiff shows by affidavit or 

declaration that for specified reasons he cannot present facts to oppose Defendants’ motion for 

summary judgment, the Court may defer ruling on the motion to allow time for further 

discovery. In order to gain a continuance under Rule 56(d), Plaintiff must identify by affidavit 

the specific facts that further discovery would reveal, and explain why those facts would 

preclude summary judgment. Tatum v. City and County of Sacramento, 441 F.3d 1090, 1100 

(9th Cir. 2006); Tuvalu v. Woodford, No. CIV S-04-1724 RRB KJM P, 2007 WL 2900175, at 

1-4 (E.D. Cal. Sept. 28, 2007).

Discussion

Plaintiff seeks to defer the court’s ruling on Defendants’ summary judgment motion to 

allow more time for discovery. However, Plaintiff has not shown by affidavit or declaration, 

that, for specified reasons, he cannot present facts essential to justify his opposition. To defer 

the court’s ruling, Plaintiff must submit a declaration1establishing the following: facts 

indicating a likelihood that controverting evidence exists as to a material fact; specific reasons 

why such evidence was not discovered or obtained earlier in the proceedings (i.e. “good 

cause'); the steps or procedures by which he proposes to obtain such evidence within a 

reasonable time; and an explanation of how those facts will suffice to defeat the pending 

 

1 The declaration must be dated and signed by Plaintiff, attesting under penalty of perjury to 

facts known by the declarant, in substantially the following form: AI declare under penalty of perjury that the 

foregoing is true and correct. Executed on (date) . (Signature).@ Such a declaration, if properly prepared, is 

admissible in federal court with the same effect as an affidavit. 28 U.S.C. ' 1746.

Case 1:12-cv-01516-DAD-EPG Document 58 Filed 05/21/15 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

motion for summary judgment (i.e., to rebut the movant's allegations of no genuine issue of 

material fact). Tatum, 441 F.3d at 1101. Plaintiff has not submitted any declarations or offered 

any evidence that meets the above standard. Therefore, Plaintiff’s request to defer the court’s 

ruling shall be denied, without prejudice to renewal of the motion within thirty days. 

III. CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Rule 56 motion to 

defer the court’s ruling on Defendants’ motion for summary judgment, filed on May 18, 2015, 

is DENIED, without prejudice to renewal of the motion within thirty days from the date of 

service of this order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 21, 2015 /s/ Gary S. Austin 

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:12-cv-01516-DAD-EPG Document 58 Filed 05/21/15 Page 3 of 3