Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-00537/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-00537-14/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

DAVID WILSON,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-06-0537 FCD GGH P

vs.

C/O BAKER, et al., ORDER AND

Defendants. FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATIONS

 /

On January 24, 2008, plaintiff filed a summary judgment motion. On March 24,

2008, the court ordered defendants to show cause for their failure to file a response to this

motion.

On April 3, 2008, defendants filed a response to the order to show cause. Good

cause appearing, the show cause order is discharged.

On April 3, 2008, defendants filed a motion to continue the court’s ruling on

plaintiff’s summary judgment motion. The court construes defendants’ motion as an opposition

to plaintiff’s motion. Defendants argue that plaintiff’s motion should be denied because they

have not had sufficient time to conduct discovery. Counsel’s declaration, attached to the

motion/opposition, discusses the discovery that he intends to conduct.

/////

Case 2:06-cv-00537-FCD-GGH Document 49 Filed 04/25/08 Page 1 of 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

2

Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(f) provides that if a party opposing a summary judgment

motion shows by affidavit that, for specified reasons, it cannot present facts essential to justify its

opposition, the court may deny the motion. Defendants’ motion, made pursuant to Rule 56(f), is

well taken. Accordingly, plaintiff’s motion should be denied as premature.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The March 24, 2008, order to show cause is discharged;

2. Defendants’ April 3, 2008, motion to continue is construed as an opposition to

plaintiff’s summary judgment motion;

IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that plaintiff’s January 24, 2008, summary

judgment motion be denied.

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District

Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within twenty

days after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written

objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned 

“Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Any reply to the objections

shall be served and filed within ten days after service of the objections. The parties are advised

that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District

Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 

DATED: 04/25/08

/s/ Gregory G. Hollows

 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

wil537.56

Case 2:06-cv-00537-FCD-GGH Document 49 Filed 04/25/08 Page 2 of 2