Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_09-cv-00679/USCOURTS-caed-1_09-cv-00679-22/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Federal Question: Bivens Act

---

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

RAUL SANCHEZ ZAVALA,

Plaintiff,

v.

HECTOR RIOS, et al.,

Defendants.

CASE NO. 1:09-cv-00679-MJS (PC)

ORDER (1) DENYING REQUEST FOR 

APPOINTMENT OF COURT OFFICER 

(ECF No. 127); (2) DENYING REQUEST 

FOR STAY OR EXTENSION OF TIME TO 

CONDUCT WRITTEN DEPOSITIONS 

(ECF No. 128); AND (3) DENYING 

REQUEST FOR STAY OR EXTENSION 

OF TIME TO OPPOSE MOTION FOR 

SUMMARY JUDGMENT (ECF No. 129) 

I. PROCEDURAL HISTORY

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

rights action brought pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal 

Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971), and 28 U.S.C. § 1331. The action proceeds 

against Defendant Gonzaga, and against Doe Defendants A and B.

On February 9, 2015, Defendant Gonzaga filed a motion for summary judgment. 

(ECF No. 117.) On March 17, 2015, the Court addressed several of Plaintiff’s pending 

motions and granted him thirty days to take written depositions to attempt to identify 

Defendants A and B. (ECF No. 122.) Thereafter, on March 19, 2015, the Court granted 

Plaintiff an additional sixty days to file his opposition to the motion for summary 

judgment. (ECF No. 124.) On April 14, 2015, the Court granted Plaintiff an additional 

Case 1:09-cv-00679-DAD-EPG Document 131 Filed 06/08/15 Page 1 of 4
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

thirty days to complete the written depositions, and noted that no further extensions of 

time would be granted. (ECF No. 126.)

On May 7, 2015, Plaintiff filed a motion for appointment of a court officer to take 

written depositions. (ECF No. 127.) On the same date, Plaintiff filed a motion to stay 

discovery proceedings or, in the alternative, for an extension of time for Plaintiff to take 

written depositions. (ECF No. 128.) On May 18, 2015, Plaintiff requested an extension of 

time and a stay of the proceedings on Defendants’ motion for summary judgment. (ECF 

No. 129.) Plaintiff simultaneously filed his opposition to Defendants’ motion for summary 

judgment. (ECF No. 130.) Defendants filed no opposition to Plaintiff’s motions. They are 

deemed submitted. Local Rule 230(l).

II. MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF COURT OFFICER

Plaintiff cites no statutory authority that would permit the Court to order that 

written depositions be taken at public expense, and the Court finds none. See Tedder v. 

Odel, 890 F.2d 210, 211-12 (9th Cir. 1989) (“[T]he expenditure of public funds [on behalf 

of an indigent litigant] is proper only when authorized by Congress. . . .” (quoting United 

States v. MacCollom, 426 U.S. 317, 321 (1976))). Accordingly, Plaintiff’s request that a 

court officer or other person be appointed to take written depositions on his behalf (ECF 

No. 127) must be denied.

III. EXTENSION OF TIME TO TAKE WRITTEN DEPOSITIONS

Plaintiff states that he submitted the permitted written question to USP Atwater 

mailroom employees on April 10, 2015. (ECF No. 129.) However, he also complains that 

his efforts to submit written questions were hindered by his institution because he did not 

receive the Court’s order granting him an extension of time to submit such questions 

until April 17, 2015. (ECF No. 128.) Thus, it appears Plaintiff submitted the written 

questions before he received the Court’s order, and therefore was not prejudiced by any 

delay on the part of mailroom staff. Accordingly, the delay does not support his request 

for an extension of time. It is apparent that Plaintiff submitted his written questions well 

within the time afforded by the Court’s orders.

Case 1:09-cv-00679-DAD-EPG Document 131 Filed 06/08/15 Page 2 of 4
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

Additionally, Plaintiff previously was informed that no further extensions of time 

would be permitted. Plaintiff’s indigence and pro se status are unchanged from the 

Court’s prior orders, and do not provided a basis for a further extension of time in light of 

the Court’s prior admonition. 

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion for extension of time to conduct written depositions 

(ECF No. 128) will be denied. 

IV. EXTENSION OF TIME TO OPPOSE MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Plaintiff simultaneously submitted his opposition to the motion for summary 

judgment, as well as a request for a stay of further proceedings on the motion for 

summary judgment or, in the alternative, for an extension of time. His motion is based on 

his pro se status, difficulties with institutional mail, and the need to receive responses to 

his written deposition questions.

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(d) permits the Court to delay consideration of 

a motion for summary judgment to allow parties to obtain discovery to oppose the 

motion. When a motion for summary judgment is filed “before a party has had any 

realistic opportunity to pursue discovery relating to its theory of the case,” a Rule 56(d) 

motion should be freely granted. Burlington N. Santa Fe R.R. Co. v. Assiniboine and 

Sioux Tribes of the Fort Peck Reservation, 323 F.3d 767, 773 (9th Cir. 2003).

A party asserting that discovery is necessary to oppose a motion for summary 

judgment “shall provide a specification of the particular facts on which discovery is to be 

had or the issues on which discovery is necessary.” Local Rule 260(b). However, where 

“no discovery whatsoever has taken place, the party making a Rule 56[(d)] motion 

cannot be expected to frame its motion with great specificity as to the kind of discovery 

likely to turn up useful information, as the ground for such specificity has not yet been 

laid.” Burlington N., 323 F.3d at 774. “The Courts which have denied a Rule 56[(d)] 

application for lack of sufficient showing to support further discovery appear to have 

done so where it was clear that the evidence sought was almost certainly nonexistent or 

Case 1:09-cv-00679-DAD-EPG Document 131 Filed 06/08/15 Page 3 of 4
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

was the object of pure speculation.” VISA Int’l. Serv. Ass’n v. Bankcard Holders of Am., 

784 F.2d 1472, 1475 (9th Cir. 1986) (citation omitted).

Plaintiff’s request does not meet this standard. He makes no particularized 

showing that the information sought through written questions is necessary to oppose 

the motion for summary judgment. The motion for summary judgment addresses only 

the conduct of Defendant Gonzaga. Plaintiff does not explain how the responses to 

written deposition questions, which were intended to identify Doe Defendants, are 

necessary to his ability to successfully prosecute his claims against Defendant Gonzaga.

Additionally, Plaintiff has filed an opposition to the motion for summary judgment, 

and has not specified how that response was deficient in light of his apparent lack of 

responses to the written deposition questions. Accordingly, the request for a stay of the 

summary judgment proceedings or extension of time to respond appears to be moot.

Accordingly, the motion will be denied. (ECF No. 129.)

V. CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s motion for appointment of a court officer (ECF No. 127) is 

DENIED;

2. Plaintiff’s motion for a discovery stay or, in the alternative, an extension of 

time to conduct written depositions (ECF No. 128) is DENIED;

3. Plaintiff’s motion for a stay of proceedings on the motion for summary 

judgment or, in the alternative, an extension of time to respond (ECF No. 

129), is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 8, 2015 /s/Michael J. Seng 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:09-cv-00679-DAD-EPG Document 131 Filed 06/08/15 Page 4 of 4