Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-01808/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-01808-10/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

LAKEITH LEROY MCCOY,

Plaintiff,

v.

J. RAMIREZ, et al., 

Defendants.

CASE NO. 1:13-cv-01808-MJS (PC)

 ORDER 

(1) GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION 

FOR EXTENSION OF TIME; AND

(2) DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE 

DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR 

SUMMARY JUDGMENT

 (ECF Nos. 60, 61)

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil 

rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter proceeds against Defendant 

Ramirez on an Eighth Amendment excessive force claim. Both parties have consented 

to the jurisdiction of a magistrate judge.

On March 17, 2016, a Discovery and Scheduling Order issued in this case, setting 

November 17, 2016, as the discovery deadline. (ECF No. 58.) Very shortly after the 

Scheduling Order issued, Defendant filed a motion for summary judgment. (ECF No. 60.) 

Case 1:13-cv-01808-DAD-JLT Document 73 Filed 08/26/16 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

Plaintiff now moves for an extension of time to oppose Defendant’s motion for summary 

judgment pending the completion of discovery. The Court construes Plaintiff’s motion as 

one filed pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(d). 

Under Rule 56(d), a party opposing a motion for summary judgment may request 

an order deferring the time to respond to the motion and permitting that party to conduct 

additional discovery upon an adequate factual showing. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(d) 

(requiring party making such request to show “by affidavit or declaration that, for 

specified reasons, it cannot present facts essential to justify its opposition.”). A Rule 

56(d) affidavit must identify “the specific facts that further discovery would reveal, and 

explain why those facts would preclude summary judgment.” Tatum v. City and County 

of San Francisco, 441 F.3d 1090, 1100 (9th Cir. 2006). On such a showing, “the court 

may: (1) defer considering the motion or deny it; (2) allow time to obtain affidavits or 

declarations or to take discovery; or (3) issue any other appropriate order.” Fed. R. Civ. 

P. 56(d). 

“Though the conduct of discovery is generally left to a district court’s discretion, 

summary judgment is disfavored where relevant evidence remains to be discovered, 

particularly in cases involving confined pro se plaintiffs. Klingele v. Eikenberry, 849 F.2d 

409, 412 (9th Cir. 1988). Thus, summary judgment in the face of requests for additional 

discovery is appropriate only where such discovery would be “fruitless” with respect to 

the proof of a viable claim.” Jones v. Blanas, 393 F.3d 918, 930 (9th Cir. 2004). “The 

burden is on the nonmoving party, however, to show what material facts would be 

discovered that would preclude summary judgment.” Klingele, 849 F.2d at 412; see also

Conkle v. Jeong, 73 F.3d 909, 914 (9th Cir. 1995) (“The burden is on the party seeking 

to conduct additional discovery to put forth sufficient facts to show that the evidence 

sought exists.”). Moreover, “‘[t]he district court does not abuse its discretion by denying 

further discovery if the movant has failed diligently to pursue discovery in the past.’” 

Conkle, at 914 (quoting California Union Ins. Co. v. American Diversified Sav. Bank, 914 

Case 1:13-cv-01808-DAD-JLT Document 73 Filed 08/26/16 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

F.2d 1271, 1278 (9th Cir. 1990).

Plaintiff contends that he is unable to properly oppose Defendant’s motion for 

summary judgment because he has not yet had an opportunity to conduct discovery or 

obtain a declaration from his former cell-mate and other documents addressed in a 

pending motion to compel.

1

The Court finds that, under the circumstances, Plaintiff has met his burden under 

Rule 56(d). It would be unfair and quite likely unproductive to require him to oppose 

Defendant’s motion for summary judgment without the benefit of having conducted 

reasonable discovery. Therefore, the undersigned will grant Plaintiff’s Rule 56(d) motion 

and deny Defendant’s motion for summary judgment, without prejudice to its renewal at 

a later time.

Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s motion (ECF No. 61) is GRANTED;

2. Defendant’s April 1, 2016, motion for summary judgment is DENIED 

WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 25, 2016 /s/Michael J. Seng 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

 

1

Plaintiff’s July 5, 2016, motion to compel (ECF No. 67) will be addressed in a separate order.

Case 1:13-cv-01808-DAD-JLT Document 73 Filed 08/26/16 Page 3 of 3