Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_11-cv-01179/USCOURTS-caed-1_11-cv-01179-15/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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DANIEL MASTERSON,

Plaintiff,

v.

S. KILLEN, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:11-cv-01179-DAD-SAB-PC

ORDER RE MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF 

TIME (ECF NO. 90), MOTION TO 

CONTINUE THE MOTION FOR 

SUMMARY JUDGMENT (ECF NO. 95), 

MOTION TO STRIKE DECLARATION 

(ECF NO. 100), MOTION TO ALLOW 

PLAINTIFF TO SUBMIT SIGNED 

DECLARATION (ECF NO. 106), 

DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO FILE 

OMITTED DECLARATION AND 

DECLARATION SIGNATURE PAGE (ECF 

NO. 107)

Plaintiff is appearing pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 

U.S.C. § 1983. Pending before the Court are Plaintiff’s motion to extend time to file opposition 

to the motion for summary judgment filed on July 29, 2016 (ECF No. 94), Plaintiff’s motion to 

continue the motion for summary judgment filed on July 29, 2016 (ECF No. 95), Plaintiff’s 

motion to strike declarations filed on September 19, 2016 (ECF No. 100), Plaintiff’s motion to 

allow Plaintiff to submit a signed declaration filed on September 21, 2016, (ECF No. 106), and 

Defendants’ motion to file omitted declarations filed on September 23, 2016. (ECF No. 107).

I.

MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME

On July 29, 2016, Plaintiff filed a motion to extend time to file an opposition to 

Defendants’ motion for summary judgment. On September 19, 2016, Plaintiff filed an

Case 1:11-cv-01179-SAB Document 112 Filed 10/19/16 Page 1 of 7
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

opposition to the motion. (ECF No. 101.) The Court, having considered Plaintiff’s motion, 

grants Plaintiff’s request and deems the opposition filed on September 19, 2016, to be timely 

filed. Plaintiff’s motion for extension of time filed on July 29, 2016, is granted, nunc pro tunc, to 

September 19, 2016.

II.

MOTION TO CONTINUE

On July 29, 2016, Plaintiff also filed a motion to continue the motion for summary 

judgment pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(d). (ECF No. 95.) On September 12, 2016, Defendants 

filed opposition to Plaintiff’s motion. (ECF No. 99.) Plaintiff seeks a continuance to of the 

motion for summary judgement to obtain discovery regarding certain statements contained in 

Defendants’ motion for summary judgment.

Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(d) provides that “[i]f a nonmovant shows by affidavit or declaration 

that, for specified reasons, it cannot present facts essential to justify its opposition, the court may: 

(1) defer considering the motion or deny it; (2) allow time to obtain affidavits or declarations or 

to take discovery; or (3) issue any other appropriate order.” In seeking relief under Rule 56(d), 

Plaintiff bears the burden of specifically identifying relevant information along with the basis for 

believing that the information actually exists and must demonstrate both that the evidence sought 

actually exists and that it would prevent summary judgment. Blough v. Holland Realty, Inc., 574 

F.3d 1084, 1091 n. 5 (9th Cir. 2009) (quotation marks and citation omitted); Getz v. Boeing Co., 

654 F.3d 852, 867-68 (9th Cir. 2011); Tatum v. City and County of San Francisco, 441 F.3d

1090, 1100-01 (9th Cir. 2006). 

Plaintiff indicates, though not in affidavit form, that he seeks “relevant documentation via 

discovery from Defendants that support [their] new allegations[s.]” Plaintiff does not set forth 

the specific facts he seeks, but states that he seeks the following documentation: documentation 

that a certain Library Technical Assistant (“LTA”) was not providing appropriate supervision of 

Plaintiff; documents about Defendant Hampson’s statements that Plaintiff was manipulative and 

made her uneasy; Rules Violation Reports that were issued to any inmate for possession of 

pornography on Facility D, before and after Plaintiff was removed from his library position; a 

Case 1:11-cv-01179-SAB Document 112 Filed 10/19/16 Page 2 of 7
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

fire evacuation floor plan for SATF’s medical clinic; and documents regarding “illegal activities”

by Defendants. 

A. Request for Documents Regarding LTA Mandel

Plaintiff requests that discovery be re-opened so he can “obtain relevant documentation 

from Defendants that support the allegation that LTA was not providing appropriate supervision 

of Plaintiff.” (ECF No. 95 at 2:16-18.) Defendants note that Plaintiff has not proffered 

sufficient facts to show that the evidence sought exists, or that it would prevent the Court from 

granting summary judgment. Defendants indicate that they presented a fact, under penalty of 

perjury, that LTA Mandel was moved from the Facility D library to another facility because, 

among other reasons, he “was not providing appropriate supervision of the inmate library 

clerks.” (ECF No. 90-3 at 3:4-5.) Plaintiff offers no reason why he needs documentation 

regarding his own supervision, which he can attest to, and makes no showing that such 

documentation would preclude summary judgment. Plaintiff’s motion is therefore denied as to 

this request.

B. Request for Documents Regarding Defendant Hampson’s Statements

In support of the motion for summary judgment, Defendant Hampson declared under 

penalty of perjury that she found Plaintiff to be “manipulative, and he made [her] uneasy.” (ECF

No. 90-8 at 3:1.) Plaintiff requests “relevant documentation via discovery from Defendants that 

support his new allegation.” (ECF No. 95 at 2:23.) Plaintiff has not proffered any facts that any 

such documentation exists, and if it did, how it would preclude summary judgment. Defendants 

note that Plaintiff is in possession of a February 15, 2011, CDC 128-B Informational Chrono 

authored by Defendant Hampson that chronicles Plaintiff’s manipulative behavior. This 

document is contained in Plaintiff’s central file, and was also provided to Plaintiff during 

discovery. (DEF POD 0299). Defendants also indicate that Plaintiff produced this document to 

Defendants in response to their discovery requests, and it was attached to Defendant Hampson’s 

declaration in support of Defendants’ summary judgment motion. (ECF No. 90-8 at 10.) 

Plaintiff has not shown that any other such documentation exists.

Plaintiff also seeks documentation to obtain further discovery about the “allegation” that 

Case 1:11-cv-01179-SAB Document 112 Filed 10/19/16 Page 3 of 7
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

after Plaintiff was removed from his Facility D library clerk position, Defendant Hampson was 

informed that “the number of copies of confiscated pornography had gone down significantly.” 

(ECF No. 90-8 at 3:15-18.) Plaintiff fails to explain how this information, even if this 

documentation existed, would preclude summary judgment on the issue that he was removed 

from his library clerk position for non-retaliatory issues. Plaintiff’s motion is therefore denied as 

to this request.

C. Documents About Plaintiff’s Possible Involvement in Illegal Activities

Plaintiff seeks to re-open discovery in order to receive a confidential Fire Evacuation 

Floor Plan of SATF’s medical clinic in order to show that “Defendants’ witness (Waymon

Berry) made false statements . . .” (ECF No. 95 at 4:5-7.) Defendants argue that a floor plan 

would not call into dispute Mr. Berry’s testimony that he had no conversation with Plaintiff 

during the time Plaintiff was in SATF’s medical clinic, and that they never had a conversation 

regarding the reasons Plaintiff was placed in Administrative Segregation in January 2012. (ECF 

No. 90-5 at 3:3-9.) Plaintiff has failed to show how re-opening discovery to obtain this 

confidential floor plan would preclude summary judgment. Plaintiff’s motion is therefore denied 

as to this request.

D. Documents About Plaintiff’s Possible Involvement in Illegal Activities.

Plaintiff seeks to re-open discovery in order to obtain “relevant documents and or 

responses to interrogatories regarding the alleged ‘illegal activities’ purported by Defendants.” 

(ECF No. 95 at 4:25-27.) Plaintiff refers to Defendant Tolson’s declaration and an attached copy 

of Plaintiff’s January 8, 2012, confidential information disclosure form. (ECF No. 90-12 at 10.) 

This form states, “initial information indicated your possible involvement with illegal activities, 

i.e. drugs, etc. . . .” (Id.) Defendants argue that their motion is replete with reasons Plaintiff was 

placed in Administrative Segregation in January 2012, and this document provides just one 

justification for that placement. Defendants further argue that Plaintiff has access to his own 

central file and he admits that he has “over five cubic feet” of documents related solely to this 

case, (ECF No. 92 at 2:22-23), and has the ability to obtain this, or any non-confidential 

document regarding the reasons he was placed in Administrative Segregation in January 2012. 

Case 1:11-cv-01179-SAB Document 112 Filed 10/19/16 Page 4 of 7
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

Defendants note that during the nearly year-long discovery period, Plaintiff could have 

propounded discovery requests regarding this document and what “illegal activities” it referred 

to, but did not. Further, Plaintiff has failed to show how re-opening discovery to obtain this 

information would preclude summary judgment, and Plaintiff’s motion should therefore be 

denied as to this request. 

Where a plaintiff has not been diligent in seeking discovery, the Court should deny a 

request for further discovery under Rule 56(d). California Union Ins. Co. v. American 

Diversified Sav. Bank, 914 F.2d 1271, 1278 (9th Cir. 1990). “When a party requests a Rule 

56[d] continuance after the discovery completion date prescribed in a Rule 16 scheduling order, 

that party must also demonstrate “good cause” exists under Rule 16(b) to conduct further 

discovery.” Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 607-08 (9th Cir. 1992). 

As Defendants argue, the Court finds that Plaintiff did not diligently seek the information 

he now claims to need. Discovery in this matter opened in November 2014 and closed on 

October 15, 2015. (ECF Nos. 42, 55.) Plaintiff did not seek the discovery at issue in this motion 

until July 29, 2016, more than nine months after discovery closed and almost two months after 

Defendants’ motion for summary judgment was filed. 

Further, Plaintiff does not show what information or documents he believes exist, nor 

does he demonstrate such documents would prevent summary judgment. Plaintiff’s desire to reopen discovery, of itself, does not entitle him to relief under Rule 56(d). Naoko Ohno v. Yuko 

Yasuma, 723 F.3d 984, 1013 n.29 (9th Cir. 2013) (evidence to be sought through discovery must 

be based on more than mere speculation). Plaintiff has not shown due diligence, or good cause 

why discovery should be re-opened in this case. For these reasons, Plaintiff’s motion to continue 

ruling on the motion for summary judgment is denied.

III.

MOTIONS TO STRIKE AND TO FILE DECLARATION SIGNATURE PAGE

On September 19, 2016, Plaintiff filed a motion to strike the declaration of Defendant 

Hampson on the ground that the declaration was not signed. (ECF No. 100.) On September 23, 

2016, Defendants filed a motion to file the omitted declaration of and declaration signature page 

Case 1:11-cv-01179-SAB Document 112 Filed 10/19/16 Page 5 of 7
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

6

nunc pro tunc, and an opposition to Plaintiff’s motion to strike. (ECF No. 107.) On October 7, 

2016, Plaintiff filed a reply, and opposition to Defendants’ motion to file the omitted declaration 

and declaration signature page. (ECF No. 110.) Defendants’ opposition is supported by the 

declaration of counsel. Counsel declares that on September 20, 2016, she learned that Defendant 

Hampson’s declaration in support of Defendants’ summary judgment motion was filed without 

her signature and that Correctional Counselor I D. Hanson’s entire declaration and supporting 

exhibits were inadvertently omitted.

Defendants correctly argue that a court’s nunc pro tunc power “is a limited one, and may 

be used only where necessary to correct a clear mistake and prevent injustice.” United States v. 

Sumner, 226 F.3d 1005, 1010 (9th Cir. 2000) (quotation marks and citations omitted). “It does 

not imply the ability to alter the substance of that which actually transpired or to backdate events 

to serve some other purpose. Rather, it’s use is limited to making the record reflect what the 

district court actually intended to do at an earlier date, but which it did not sufficiently express or 

did not accomplish due to some error or inadvertence.” Id. (quotation marks and citations 

omitted). In other words, “a nunc pro tunc order is typically used to correct clerical or 

ministerial errors,” but as a general rule does not enable a court to make “substantive changes 

affecting parties’ rights,” Transamerica Ins. Co. v. South, 975 F.2d 321, 325 (7th Cir. 1992), or 

to “rewrite history,” Cent. Laborers’ Pension, Welfare & Annunity Funds v. Griffee, 198 F.3d 

642, 644 (7th Cir. 1999). Defendants further note that in conjunction with nunc pro tunc 

principles, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(e) states that “if a party fails to properly support 

an assertion of fact . . .as required by Rule 56(c), the court may: (1) give an opportunity to 

properly support or address the fact.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(e). Here, the Court finds that 

Defendants have properly supported their assertions of fact; however, through a clerical error, 

certain documents supporting particular facts were unintentionally omitted. (Mayer Decl. ¶ 4.) 

Plaintiff’s motion to strike the declaration of Defendant Hampson is therefore denied, and 

Defendants’ motion to file the omitted declaration and declaration signature page is granted. 

On September 21, 2016, Plaintiff filed a motion to allow Plaintiff to submit a signed 

declaration to replace the unsigned declaration of Plaintiff submitted as Exhibit 1 to his 

Case 1:11-cv-01179-SAB Document 112 Filed 10/19/16 Page 6 of 7
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

7

opposition to the motion for summary judgment. (ECF No 106.) Plaintiff indicates that he 

inadvertently failed to sign the declaration, and attaches to his motion a signed declaration. For 

the same reasons noted above, Plaintiff’s motion is granted. Plaintiff’s signed declaration

submitted on September 21, 2016, will be considered as Exhibit 1 to Plaintiff’s opposition to the 

motion for summary judgment filed on September 19, 2016.

IV.

ORDER

Accordingly, based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s motion for extension of time (ECF No. 94) is GRANTED nunc pro tunc to 

September 19, 2016;

2. Plaintiff’s motion to continue the motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 95) is 

DENIED;

3. Plaintiff’s motion to strike the declaration of Defendant Hampson (ECF No. 100)

is DENIED;

4. Plaintiff’s motion to allow Plaintiff to submit a signed declaration (ECF No. 106) is 

GRANTED; and

5. Defendants’ motion to file omitted declaration and signed declaration page (ECF No. 

107) is GRANTED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 19, 2016 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:11-cv-01179-SAB Document 112 Filed 10/19/16 Page 7 of 7