Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_04-cv-00818/USCOURTS-cand-5_04-cv-00818-2/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

Order Regarding Pending Motions; Further Scheduling Order 

P:\pro-se\sj.rmw\cr.04\Walters818miscmtns 1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ROBERT KELLY WALTERS, 

Plaintiff,

 v.

EDWARD ALAMEIDA, et. al., 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C 04-0818 RMW (PR)

ORDER REGARDING

PENDING MOTIONS;

FURTHER SCHEDULING

ORDER 

(Docket Nos. 39, 47, 56, 57, 58,

59, 61, 65, 66) 

Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, filed a civil rights complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 

Plaintiff has been granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis. On July 7, 2006, plaintiff filed an

amended complaint. The court granted plaintiff leave to file an amended complaint. Thereafter,

the court reviewed the amended complaint and dismissed three of plaintiff’s claims, dismissed

defendants California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (“CDCR”) and Edward

Alameida in his official capacity, and ordered service of the amended complaint on the

remaining defendants. Defendants Alameida, Nimrod, Preston, Polk, McGrath, and Browman

filed a motion to stay discovery and a motion for summary judgment. Defendants Lucarelli and

Wheeler filed a motion to join in the pending motion for summary judgment. Plaintiff has filed

an opposition to defendants’ motion for summary judgment, a motion to compel discovery, two

*E-FILED - 3/20/08*

Case 5:04-cv-00818-RMW Document 71 Filed 03/20/08 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

Order Regarding Pending Motions; Further Scheduling Order 

P:\pro-se\sj.rmw\cr.04\Walters818miscmtns 2

motions for extension of time, a motion to expedite, a motion for leave to supplement his

opposition, and a request to join defendants Lucarelli and Wheeler in his opposition. Although

directed to do so, defendants did not file a reply to plaintiff’s opposition. The court will address

the pending motions and issue a further scheduling order on the motion for summary judgment. 

DISCUSSION

 A. Discovery

Defendants Alameida, Nimrod, Preston, Polk, McGrath, and Browman filed a motion to

stay discovery pending a ruling on their motion for summary judgment. Plaintiff has filed an

opposition to defendants’ motion to stay discovery, a motion to compel, and a motion to stay the

summary judgment motion until he receives responses to his pending discovery requests. 

Plaintiff has filed an opposition to the motion for summary judgment. 

After a careful review of the record, the court concludes that a stay of discovery is in

order. It is well settled that a stay of discovery should be granted until the threshold question of

qualified immunity is decided. See Crawford-El v. Britton, 523 U.S. 574, 598 (1998). “When a

plaintiff files a complaint against a public official alleging a claim that requires proof of

wrongful motive, the trial court must exercise its discretion in a way that protects the substance

of the qualified immunity defense. It must exercise its discretion so that officials are not

subjected to unnecessary and burdensome discovery or trial proceedings.” Id. at 597-98. 

Accordingly, defendants’ request for a stay of discovery is GRANTED (docket no. 39). 

Plaintiff’s motion to compel discovery and to stay the pending motion for summary judgment is

DENIED without prejudice (docket nos. 56, 57). The stay will remain in effect until the court

issues an order on the motion for summary judgment. If the court denies qualified immunity, the

stay will be lifted and the parties will have the opportunity to engage in discovery and to file

supplemental pleadings with respect to any remaining grounds for summary judgment.

The court is mindful that its stay on discovery will require some relaxation of the

ordinary rules of admissibility of evidence as to affidavits which may be used to oppose

summary judgment here. See DiMartini v Ferrin, 889 F.2d 922, 926-27 (9th Cir. 1989),

amended, 906 F.2d 465 (9th Cir. 1990), cert. denied, 501 U.S. 1204 (1991). Plaintiff is advised,

Case 5:04-cv-00818-RMW Document 71 Filed 03/20/08 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

Order Regarding Pending Motions; Further Scheduling Order 

P:\pro-se\sj.rmw\cr.04\Walters818miscmtns 3

however, that merely asserting the need for discovery in his opposition papers will not defeat

summary judgment. At minimum, plaintiff must comport with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure

56(f) and, by affidavit filed in conjunction with his opposition, show what particular facts he

expects to discover and how those facts would preclude summary judgment. See Mackey v.

Pioneer Nat’l Bank, 867 F.2d 520, 523-24 (9th Cir 1989). 

B. Pending Motions and Further Scheduling Order

Plaintiff has filed a motion for extension of time to file his opposition to defendants’

motion for summary judgment. Thereafter, plaintiff filed an opposition on August 1, 2007. The

court concludes plaintiff has shown good cause for such extension. Plaintiff’s motion (docket

no. 58) is GRANTED. The opposition, filed on August 1, 2007, is deemed timely. Plaintiff filed

a motion for an expedited hearing on his pending motions. The court DENIES plaintiff’s motion

for an expedited hearing (docket no. 59) as moot.

Defendants Lucarelli and Wheeler have filed a motion to join in the remaining

defendants’ motion for summary judgment. Defendants Lucarelli and Wheeler’s motion (docket

no. 61) is GRANTED. Plaintiff has filed a motion for extension of time to file an opposition to

Defendant Lucarelli and Wheeler’s motion and a motion for leave to supplement his opposition

as to defendants’ Lucarelli and Wheeler. Although the court notes that defendants Lucarelli and

Wheeler did not file any supplemental briefing on the motion for summary judgment, the court

GRANTS plaintiff’s motion for leave to supplement his opposition (docket no. 66). The court

notes that plaintiff filed a supplemental opposition as to these defendants on August 6, 2007. 

Therefore, plaintiff’s motion for extension of time (docket no. 65) is DENIED as moot. 

As of the date of this order, defendants have not filed a reply to plaintiff’s opposition and

supplemental opposition. The court will DENY the pending motion for summary judgment

(docket no. 47) without prejudice and CONTINUE this motion until defendants have submitted a

reply brief. Accordingly, defendants shall file a reply brief, and serve a copy on plaintiff, within

thirty (30) days of the date this order is filed.

\\\

\\\

Case 5:04-cv-00818-RMW Document 71 Filed 03/20/08 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

Order Regarding Pending Motions; Further Scheduling Order 

P:\pro-se\sj.rmw\cr.04\Walters818miscmtns 4

CONCLUSION 

1. Defendants’ motion for a stay of discovery pending a ruling on the motion for 

summary judgment (docket no. 39) is GRANTED. 

2. Plaintiff’s motion to compel discovery and motion to stay the pending motion for 

summary judgment (docket nos. 56, 57) are DENIED without prejudice. 

3. Plaintiff’s motion for extension of time to file his opposition to defendants’ 

motion for summary judgment (docket no. 58) is GRANTED. The opposition, filed on August

1, 2007, is deemed timely. 

4. Plaintiff’s motion for an expedited hearing (docket no. 59) is DENIED as moot.

5. Defendants Lucarelli and Wheeler’s motion to join in the pending motion for 

summary judgment (docket no. 61) is GRANTED. 

6. Plaintiff’s motion for leave to supplement his opposition (docket no. 66) is 

GRANTED. The court will consider plaintiff’s supplement to the opposition (docket no. 67) in

reviewing the merits of the motion for summary judgment. 

7. Plaintiff’s motion for extension of time (docket no. 65) is DENIED as moot.

8. Defendants’ motion for summary judgment (docket no. 47) is DENIED without 

prejudice and CONTINUED until defendants have submitted a reply brief. Accordingly,

defendants shall file a reply brief, and serve a copy on plaintiff, within thirty (30) days of the

date this order is filed.

9. The matter will be submitted as of the date the reply brief is due. 

10. It is plaintiff’s responsibility to prosecute this case. All communications by the 

plaintiff with the court must be served on defendants, or defendants’ counsel, by mailing a true

copy of the document to defendants or defendants’ counsel. Plaintiff must keep the court 

and the parties informed of any change of address and must comply with the court’s orders in a

timely fashion. 

\\\

\\\

\\\

Case 5:04-cv-00818-RMW Document 71 Filed 03/20/08 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

Order Regarding Pending Motions; Further Scheduling Order 

P:\pro-se\sj.rmw\cr.04\Walters818miscmtns 5

Plaintiff’s failure to do so may result in the dismissal of this action for failure to prosecute

pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: 

RONALD M. WHYTE

United States District Judge

3/19/08

Case 5:04-cv-00818-RMW Document 71 Filed 03/20/08 Page 5 of 5