Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_03-cv-00228/USCOURTS-caed-2_03-cv-00228-11/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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ELLIOT EUGENE ROLLINGSPLEASANT, 

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-03-0228 MCE EFB P

vs.

DEUEL VOCATIONAL INS.,et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

Plaintiff is a prisoner without counsel seeking relief for civil rights violations. See 42

U.S.C. § 1983. This action proceeds on the September 17, 2004, amended complaint in which

plaintiff claims the following: (1) on March 16, 2002, defendants Rose, Quesada, Valenzuela,

Velasquez and Nowak failed to protect plaintiff when they permitted a prisoner known to be

dangerous to enter an exercise yard without first searching him; (2) Nowak failed to protect

plaintiff when he permitted the assailant to climb two fences separating exercise yards and attack

plaintiff with a knife; (3) Velasquez and Nowak used excessive force by firing 15 shots at

plaintiff, even though plaintiff was under attack; (4) defendant Quesada used an entire can of

pepper spray on plaintiff even though the assailant was attempting to stab plaintiff; (5)

defendants Quesada, Thomas, Rose and Valenzuela failed to protect plaintiff because they

merely ordered prisoners to get down but did not otherwise intervene despite plaintiff’s calls for

Case 2:03-cv-00228-MCE -EFB Document 108 Filed 07/27/07 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

2

help. He also alleges that while in the infirmary after the attack: (6) defendant Reed threw

plaintiff from a wheelchair while plaintiff was in waist and leg restraints; (7) defendant Quesada

paraded plaintiff around female guards while plaintiff’s pants were down; and (8) defendants

Hernandez, Cox and Thomas hit plaintiff with their knees in the back and neck area. On August

11, 2006, defendants filed a motion for summary judgment on the grounds that plaintiff failed to

exhaust available administrative remedies and that plaintiff could not adduce evidence to show a

genuine issue as to any material fact. On September 15, 2006, plaintiff filed a motion to

continue summary judgment pursuant to Rule 56(f) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. On

March 14, 2007, plaintiff filed an opposition defendants’ motion for summary judgment.

As the party opposing summary judgment, plaintiff’s burden to prevail on this motion is

high: 

Should it appear from the affidavits of a party opposing the motion that the party

cannot for reasons stated present by affidavit facts essential to justify the party’s

opposition, the court may refuse the application for judgment or may order a

continuance to permit affidavits to be obtained or depositions to be taken or

discovery to be had or may make such other order as is just.

Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(f). This standard requires the party seeking a continuance to “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 San Francisco, 441 F.3d

1090, 1100 (9th Cir. 2006). Plaintiff asserts that he must obtain video tapes that captured the

events of March 16, 2002, or, if the tapes do not exist, that defendants destroyed them in an

attempt to “sabotage” and “obstruct” the administration of justice. Pl.’s Rule 56(f) Req., filed

Sept. 15, 2006, at 3. Plaintiff also asserts that he must propound interrogatories drafted in

response to defendants’ responses to requests for admissions. He asserts that the answers would

explain defendants’ denials, identify witnesses who could verify plaintiff’s version of events,

determine the existence and whereabouts of additional evidence and provide detailed

information about how correctional officers are trained in the use of lethal weapons and deadly

force. Id., at 4. The court has considered the motion for summary judgment in detail, and has

Case 2:03-cv-00228-MCE -EFB Document 108 Filed 07/27/07 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

3

found that there is no genuine issue about whether plaintiff satisfied the exhaustion requirement

contained in 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff does not in his Rule 56(f) motion assert that he requires

any additional discovery to oppose summary judgment on this ground. Insofar as he asserts that

defendants destroyed videotapes showing what occurred on March 16, 2002, in an attempt to

undermine the administrative appeals process, plaintiff does not explain how this would justify

his failure to exhaust. Thus, plaintiff’s motion must be denied.

Accordingly, it is ORDERED that plaintiff’s September 15, 2006, motion to continue

summary judgment is denied.

Dated: July 27, 2007.

Case 2:03-cv-00228-MCE -EFB Document 108 Filed 07/27/07 Page 3 of 3