Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_11-cv-01771/USCOURTS-caed-1_11-cv-01771-7/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

AARON McCOY,

Plaintiff,

v.

M. TANN, et al.,

Defendants.

CASE NO. 1:11-cv-1771-LJO-MJS (PC)

ORDER (1) GRANTING DEFENDANT’S 

MOTION TO MODIFY SCHEDULING 

ORDER; (2) DENYING PLAINTIFF’S 

REQUEST TO POSTPONE 

CONSIDERATION OF DEFEDANTS’ 

SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTIONS; AND 

(3) GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING 

IN PART PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO 

COMPEL AND TO POSTPONE 

CONSIDERATION OF DEFENDANTS’ 

SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTIONS

(ECF NOS. 59, 65, 66)

RESPONSE TO MOTIONS FOR 

SUMMARY JUDGMENT DUE IN SIXTY 

(60) DAYS

I. PROCEDURAL HISTORY

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

rights action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (ECF No. 1.) This action proceeds 

against Defendants James, Jones, Paz, and Jimenez on Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment 

claim for cruel and unusual punishment. (Order Directing Plaintiff to Submit Service 

Documents, ECF No. 20.)

Case 1:11-cv-01771-LJO-MJS Document 76 Filed 07/01/14 Page 1 of 5
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

On January 10, 2014, Defendants James, Jones, and Paz filed a motion for 

summary judgment. (ECF No. 57.) Plaintiff sought and was granted a thirty day 

extension of time to respond to the motion. (ECF Nos. 62, 64.)

On January 13, 2014, Defendant Jimenez filed a motion to modify the Court’s 

scheduling order to extend the dispositive motion deadline fourteen days, from January 

13, 2014 to January 27, 2014. (ECF No. 59.) Plaintiff did not oppose the motion. The

motion is deemed submitted. Although the Court has not ruled on the motion, Defendant 

Jimenez filed a motion for summary judgment on January 23, 2014. (ECF No. 60.)

On February 24, 2014, Plaintiff filed a request to postpone consideration of 

Defendants’ summary judgment motions to enable him to conduct further discovery 

(ECF No. 65), and a motion to compel and to postpone consideration of Defendants’ 

summary judgment motions to enable him to obtain witness declarations. (ECF No. 66.)

Defendants filed oppositions to the motions (ECF Nos. 68, 69), and Plaintiff filed replies. 

(ECF Nos. 72, 73.) These motions are deemed submitted.

II. DEFENDANT JIMENEZ’S MOTION TO MODIFY SCHEDULING ORDER

Defendant Jimenez seeks to extend the dispositive motion deadline fourteen days

because his counsel was unable to timely obtain a signed declaration in support of 

Jimenez’s motion for summary judgment. (ECF No. 59 at 3-4.) Defendant Jimenez 

explains that, on December 4, 2013, counsel sent a declaration to the litigation 

coordinator at California Substance Abuse Treatment Facility and State Prison, Corcoran 

(“SATF”), to be signed by a declarant employed there. However, due to the “holiday 

schedule” and the declarant’s illness, counsel did not receive the signed declaration prior 

to the January 13, 2014 deadline for filing dispositive motions.

Case 1:11-cv-01771-LJO-MJS Document 76 Filed 07/01/14 Page 2 of 5
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

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(b)(4) allows the Court to modify its scheduling 

order for good cause. The “good cause” standard focuses primarily on the diligence of 

the party seeking the amendment. Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 

604, 609 (9th Cir. 1992). “[C]arelessness is not compatible with a finding of diligence and 

offers no reason for a grant of relief.” Id. “Although the existence or degree of prejudice 

to the party opposing the modification might supply additional reasons to deny a motion, 

the focus of the inquiry is upon the moving party's reasons for seeking modification.” Id.

Good cause exists to modify the scheduling order to permit the filing of Defendant 

Jimenez’s motion for summary judgment. Counsel diligently sought to obtain the 

necessary declaration and sought modification of the scheduling order prior to the 

expiration of the deadline for filing dispositive motions. Additionally, Plaintiff will not be 

substantially prejudiced by the brief delay in filing the motion.

Accordingly, the Court will grant Defendant Jimenez’s motion to modify the 

scheduling order to extend the dispositive motion deadline to January 27, 2014. 

III. PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST TO DEFER CONSIDERATION OF MOTIONS

Plaintiff seeks to postpone consideration of Defendants’ summary judgment 

motions to allow Plaintiff to view a video of the events at issue in his complaint. (ECF No. 

65 at 2.) It is undisputed that Plaintiff has viewed the video since filing this motion. (ECF 

Nos. 67-1 at 2, 68 at 2, 73 at 1.) Accordingly, this request will be denied as moot.

IV. PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL AND TO DEFER CONSIDERATION OF 

MOTIONS

Plaintiff seeks to compel Defendants and/or the California Department of 

Corrections and Rehabilitation (“CDCR”) to permit Plaintiff to correspond with other 

inmates for the purpose of obtaining declarations needed to oppose Defendants’ 

Case 1:11-cv-01771-LJO-MJS Document 76 Filed 07/01/14 Page 3 of 5
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

motions for summary judgment. (ECF No. 66.) Plaintiff also seeks to defer consideration 

of Defendants’ motions for summary judgment until he obtains the declarations. (ECF 

No. 66 at 3.)

California Code of Regulations title 15, § 3139 governs correspondence between 

inmates, parolees, and probationers. It provides in part:

Inmates shall obtain written authorization from the Warden/Regional Parole 

Administrator or their designee/assigned probation officer, person in charge of the 

County Jail and/or other State Correctional Systems, at a level not less than 

Correctional Captain/Facility Captain or Parole Agent III, to correspond with any of 

the following:

(1) Inmates under the jurisdiction of any county, state or federal, juvenile or 

adult correctional agency.

Plaintiff acknowledges he has not sought written authorization from the

appropriate prison officials to correspond with other inmates. (ECF No. 72 at 2.) Plaintiff 

contends that this process would be time consuming and futile. The Court concludes that 

Plaintiff has not made a good faith effort to obtain the desired declarations without court 

action. Accordingly, the court will deny Plaintiff's motion to compel without prejudice. 

If plaintiff attempts to correspond with his potential witnesses by following the 

proper procedures and is denied access or is otherwise unable to effectively 

communicate with his witnesses, plaintiff may renew his motion. However, plaintiff will 

need to describe his attempts to engage in the process described above and to explain 

why the communication with each witness is relevant to this cause of action. Plaintiff’s 

general assertion that the witnesses can provide “more evidence, insight and 

perspective” (ECF No. 66 at 2) is insufficient to establish relevance. 

For the reasons stated herein, the Court will grant in part and deny in part 

Plaintiff’s motion. Although the Court will deny Plaintiff’s motion to compel, the Court will 

grant Plaintiff an additional sixty (60) days from the date of service of this order in which 

Case 1:11-cv-01771-LJO-MJS Document 76 Filed 07/01/14 Page 4 of 5
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

5

to obtain the declarations through the inmate correspondence process, and to respond 

to Defendants’ motions for summary judgment. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(d)(2).

V. CONCLUSION

Accordingly, for the reasons stated, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Defendant Jimenez’s motion to modify scheduling order (ECF No. 59) is 

GRANTED, and the deadline for filing dispositive motions is extended to January 27, 

2014;

2. Plaintiff’s motion to postpone consideration of Defendants’ summary judgment 

motions (ECF No. 65) is DENIED as moot; and 

4. Plaintiff’s motion to compel and to postpone consideration of Defendants’ 

summary judgment motions (ECF No. 66) is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part as 

follows:

a. Plaintiff’s motion to compel is denied;

b. Plaintiff’s request to postpone consideration of Defendants’ motions for 

summary judgment is granted; and

c. Plaintiff shall, within sixty (60) days from the date of service of this 

Order, file a response to Defendants’ motions for summary judgment.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 30, 2014 /s/Michael J. Seng 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:11-cv-01771-LJO-MJS Document 76 Filed 07/01/14 Page 5 of 5