Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_18-cv-06814/USCOURTS-cand-4_18-cv-06814-9/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 555
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Prison Condition
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

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

BRANDEN ROBINSON,

Plaintiff,

v.

A. JACKSON,

Defendant.

Case No. 18-cv-06814-HSG 

ORDER DENYING AS MOOT 

REQUEST FOR DISCOVERY; 

DENYING REQUEST TO DISMISS 

SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION

Re: Dkt. No. 41

Plaintiff, an inmate at California State Prison – Solano, filed this pro se civil rights action 

under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging that Alameda County deputy Jackson used excessive force on 

him when he was previously housed as a pretrial detainee at Santa Rita County Jail. Pending 

before the Court are (1) defendant Jackson’s August 27, 2019 summary judgment motion (Dkt. 

No. 20), to which plaintiff has not yet responded, and (2) plaintiff’s request that the Court dismiss 

the summary judgment motion and allow plaintiff to conduct discovery so that plaintiff can 

oppose the summary judgment motion (Dkt. No. 41). For the reasons set forth below, the Court 

DENIES as moot plaintiff’s request to conduct discovery; DENIES plaintiff’s request to dismiss 

the summary judgment motion; and resets the briefing schedule.

DISCUSSION

Plaintiff requests that the Court dismiss the summary judgment motion and allow plaintiff 

to conduct discovery so that plaintiff can oppose the summary judgment motion. Plaintiff alleges 

that the Court’s failure to allow discovery and the limited discovery provided by defendant 

Jackson via the summary judgment motion has violated plaintiff’s due process rights, implies 

defendant Jackson’s guilt of the alleged constitutional violation, and prevents plaintiff from 

opposing the summary judgment motion. Plaintiff states that, after reviewing the summary 

Case 4:18-cv-06814-HSG Document 43 Filed 04/29/20 Page 1 of 3
2

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

Northern District of California

judgment motion, he has realized that he may need to amend the complaint to add as defendants

two nurses who were aware of the inadequate medical treatment provided for his dislocated 

shoulder.

1

 See Dkt. No. 41.

Plaintiff’s request that the Court allow him to conduct discovery is DENIED as moot. 

When the Court screened plaintiff’s complaint on January 29, 2019, over a year ago, the Court 

instructed the parties that discovery could be taken in accordance with the Federal Rules of Civil 

Procedure and that no further order was needed to engage in discovery. Dkt. No. 10 at 6. Plaintiff 

has been able to engage in discovery since January 29, 2019. Neither the Court nor Defendant 

Jackson have denied plaintiff discovery. 

The Court also DENIES plaintiff’s request that the Court dismiss the summary judgment 

motion so that plaintiff may conduct the discovery necessary to oppose the summary judgment 

motion. Defendant Jackson filed the summary judgment motion over six months ago, plaintiff has 

communicated with the Court multiple times since the motion was filed (Dkt. Nos. 27, 29, 32, 34, 

37), and the Court has granted plaintiff four extensions of time to file his opposition (Dkt. Nos. 28, 

30, 35, 38). It is unclear why plaintiff has waited over six months to raise an issue regarding lack 

of discovery. Plaintiff has not shown good cause to further delay this case so that he may conduct 

discovery. 

However, given the current circumstances, the Court will grant plaintiff a final extension 

of time to oppose the summary judgment motion. Plaintiff shall file his opposition by July 2, 

2020. Defendant Jackson shall file his reply in support of the summary judgment by July 16, 

2020. This extension of time should allow plaintiff to conduct discovery. No further extensions 

of time will be granted.

It is plaintiff’s responsibility to prosecute this action. This includes reading the Court’s 

orders, reading the pleadings filed by opposing counsel,2and timely taking the actions plaintiff

1 The complaint only alleges an excessive force claim; it does not raise a claim of constitutionally 

inadequate medical treatment. Dkt. No. 1; Dkt. No. 10.

2

It is unclear if plaintiff is reading the orders and pleadings filed in this action. On September 23, 

2019, plaintiff requested an extension of time to oppose the summary judgment motion. Dkt. No. 

27. Yet, on November 6, 2019, plaintiff requested an extension of time to respond to the order to 

show cause, even though there has been no order to show cause issued in this action. Dkt. No. 29. 

Case 4:18-cv-06814-HSG Document 43 Filed 04/29/20 Page 2 of 3
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

believes are necessary to prosecute this case. The Court cannot offer plaintiff legal advice or 

advise plaintiff how to prosecute this action. 

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the Court DENIES as moot plaintiff’s request to conduct 

discovery and DENIES plaintiff’s request to dismiss the summary judgment motion. The Court 

resets the briefing schedule. Plaintiff shall file his opposition by July 2, 2020. Defendant Jackson 

shall file his reply in support of the summary judgment by July 16, 2020. No further extensions 

of time will be granted.

This order terminates Dkt. No. 41.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated:

______________________________________

HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR.

United States District Judge

On January 21, 2020, plaintiff requested that default judgment be entered against defendants for 

failure to appear even though defendant Jackson had appeared on April 23, 2019 and had filed a 

summary judgment motion. Dkt. No. 32. On January 28, 2020, plaintiff filed a letter stating that 

he was under the impression that defendant Jackson had not yet filed a summary judgment motion, 

despite having previously requested an extension of time to oppose the summary judgment 

motion. Dkt. No. 34. 

4/29/2020

Case 4:18-cv-06814-HSG Document 43 Filed 04/29/20 Page 3 of 3