Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_21-cv-00600/USCOURTS-caed-1_21-cv-00600-22/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

RODERICK WILLIAM LEAR,

Plaintiff,

v.

NAVARRO, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:21-cv-00600-ADA-BAM (PC)

ORDER GRANTING IN PART PLAINTIFF’S 

MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF 

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION 

TO STAY DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR 

SUMMARY JUDGMENT

(ECF No. 76)

ORDER DIRECTING PLAINTIFF TO FILE 

MOTION TO COMPEL OR OPPOSITION TO 

DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY 

JUDGMENT

TWENTY-ONE (21) DAY DEADLINE

Plaintiff Roderick William Lear (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in 

forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action proceeds on 

Plaintiff’s first amended complaint against Defendants Navarro, Neve, Allison, and Plata for 

excessive force in violation of the Eighth Amendment, arising from the incident on January 4, 

2020. 

I. Procedural Background

On May 13, 2022, Defendants Navarro, Neve, and Allison (“Defendants”) filed a motion 

for summary judgment on the ground that Plaintiff failed to exhaust his available administrative 

remedies before filing suit. (ECF No. 65.) On May 20, 2022, Plaintiff filed a motion requesting 

Case 1:21-cv-00600-KES-BAM Document 89 Filed 09/06/22 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

that the Court stay Defendants’ motion for summary judgment until after he receives discovery 

concerning his use of force appeals. (ECF No. 69.) Defendants did not file an opposition.

On June 10, 2022, Plaintiff filed his opposition to the motion for summary judgment. 

(ECF No. 70.) The Court found that as Plaintiff had filed his opposition, the motion for the Court 

to deny or stay Defendants’ motion for summary judgment was denied as moot and Defendants 

were directed to file any reply brief within fourteen days. (ECF No. 73.)

II. Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration

On June 23, 2022, before the expiration of the deadline for Defendants’ reply brief, 

Plaintiff filed the instant motion requesting that the Court reconsider his request to stay a ruling 

on the motion for summary judgment. (ECF No. 76.) Plaintiff stated that he had hoped to 

supplement the exhibits to his opposition with Defendants’ discovery responses, which he had not 

yet received. Plaintiff further stated that he intended to show the Court he was prepared to fight 

the summary judgment motion but still required discovery responses, and he was not sure of the 

deadline to file. Plaintiff requested that the Court allow him to submit exhaustion discovery 

responses as soon as Defendants submit them. (Id.)

As Defendants did not file a response to the motion for reconsideration or a reply brief, 

the Court found it appropriate to obtain a response from Defendants regarding Plaintiff’s motion 

for reconsideration, specifically addressing whether there were any outstanding discovery 

requests related to the issue of exhaustion, and if so, when discovery responses were or would be 

served on Plaintiff. (ECF No. 80.)

On August 9, 2022, Defendants filed a response indicating that there was an outstanding 

request for production of documents relating to investigation and processing of Plaintiff’s 

allegations against Defendants. (ECF No. 84.) When Defendants’ former attorney of record left 

employment with the Office of the Attorney General on May 20, 2022, the case was to be 

reassigned to another deputy attorney general. Due to a miscommunication and delay in that 

reassignment, the draft response prepared to Plaintiff’s document request was not served on 

Plaintiff. Defendants’ current counsel followed up with CDCR to confirm the completeness and 

receipt of all responsive documents and anticipated serving the response to Plaintiff’s document 

Case 1:21-cv-00600-KES-BAM Document 89 Filed 09/06/22 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

request by August 19, 2022. (Id.)

On September 1, 2022, in lieu of a reply brief in support of his motion for reconsideration, 

Plaintiff filed a Notice of Submission of his Meet and Confer Motion to Defendants. (ECF No. 

88.) It appears that while Plaintiff has received the requested discovery responses, he alleges that 

they produce the same documents used in support of the summary judgment motion, but do not 

include other documents Plaintiff requested. Plaintiff states that on August 23, 2022, he sent a 

meet and confer letter, but he anticipates he will need to file a motion to compel on September 11, 

2022. Plaintiff requests an extension of time to try to resolve the dispute prior to mailing out his 

motion to compel or for bad faith on September 11. (Id.)

III. Discussion

Based on the information provided by the parties, it appears that there is good cause for 

the Court to reconsider its prior order denying Plaintiff’s motion to stay or postpone ruling on 

Defendants’ motion for summary judgment. Defendants concede that Plaintiff submitted a 

request for production of documents at some point prior to May 20, 2022, but a response was not 

sent to Plaintiff until approximately August 19, 2022. (ECF No. 84.) Now, Plaintiff anticipates 

filing a motion to compel regarding the sufficiency of those responses. (ECF No. 88.)

In the interest of judicial economy, the Court finds it appropriate to stay further briefing 

on Defendants’ motion for summary judgment until the discovery dispute can be resolved. 

Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration is therefore granted to the extent that the Court will not 

decide Defendants’ motion for summary judgment while the discovery dispute remains pending.

Plaintiff shall submit a motion to compel regarding the August 19, 2022 discovery 

responses. However, if the parties come to an agreement regarding the discovery responses prior 

to the filing of Plaintiff’s motion to compel, or Plaintiff decides he is able to proceed with the 

motion for summary judgment using the responses already provided, Plaintiff shall submit a 

supplemental opposition to the motion for summary judgment. 

///

///

///

Case 1:21-cv-00600-KES-BAM Document 89 Filed 09/06/22 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

IV. Order

Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED as follows:

1. Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration of the Court’s order denying Plaintiff’s motion to 

stay Defendants’ motion for summary judgment as moot, (ECF No. 76), is GRANTED IN 

PART, as discussed above;

2. Within twenty-one (21) days from the date of service of this order, Plaintiff SHALL 

either:

a. File a motion to compel regarding Defendants’ August 19, 2022 discovery 

responses; or

b. File a supplemental opposition to Defendants’ May 13, 2022 motion for summary 

judgment, (ECF No. 65);

3. If Plaintiff files a supplemental opposition to the motion for summary judgment, 

Defendants may file a reply within fourteen (14) days after the docketing of Plaintiff’s 

supplemental opposition; and

4. Plaintiff’s failure to comply with the Court’s order will result in dismissal of this 

action, with prejudice, for failure to prosecute.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 2, 2022 /s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe _

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:21-cv-00600-KES-BAM Document 89 Filed 09/06/22 Page 4 of 4