Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_10-cv-02642/USCOURTS-casd-3_10-cv-02642-5/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CONDALEE MORRIS, Civil No. 10-CV-2642-AJB (BGS)

Plaintiff,

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S EX

v. PARTE MOTION TO DELAY RULING 

M BARRA, Program Sergeant; et al.,

Defendants.

On August 12, 2011, Plaintiff Condalee Morris, a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in

forma pauperis (“IFP”) in this civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §1983, filed a second

amended complaint. (Doc. No. 39.) On August 29, 2011, Defendants M Barra, G J Janda, L Mills

and D White filed a motion to dismiss the second amended complaint pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)

for failure to exhaust administrative remedies as to claims against Mills and Barra and for failure

to state a claim as to claims against White and Janda. (Doc. No. 43.) A hearing date of October 11,

2011 was set for Defendants’ motion, with no oral argument unless ordered by the Court. (Id.) On

September 16, 2011, Plaintiff filed a motion requesting a continuance pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P.

56(d)1

. (Doc. No. 48.) Plaintiff then filed a response in opposition to Defendants’ motion to dismiss

1

The Court notes that effective December 1, 2010, Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 56(d) is the subdivision of

Rule 56 that concerns when facts are unavailable to the nonmovant. Plaintiff filed his motion to

continue under Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(f), which was the effective subdivision that concerned the same until

December 1, 2010. Therefore, the Court construes Plaintiff’s motion as one under 56(d) and not one

under the current version of 56(f), which concerns a court’s ability to enter judgment independent of a

motion for summary judgment. 

1 10cv2642-AJB

Case 3:10-cv-02642-AJB-BGS Document 124 Filed 02/23/12 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

27

28

on September 19, 2011. (Doc. No. 49.) The Court denied Plaintiff’s motion for a continuance on

September 22, 2011. (Doc. No. 54.) Defendants filed a reply in support of their motion on

September 29, 2011. (Doc. No. 55.) On October 5, 2011, Plaintiff filed another motion requesting

a continuance, which was denied by the Court on February 8, 2012. (Doc. Nos. 59 & 116.) 

After Defendants’ reply to the motion to dismiss, Plaintiff submitted additional documents

supporting his opposition to the Defendants’ motion to dismiss. (See Doc. Nos. 77, 81, 83, & 85.)

In light of Plaintiff’s additional submissions, the Court permitted Defendants to file a supplemental

reply. (Doc. No. 92.) Defendants filed a supplemental reply on December 12, 2011. (Doc. No. 96.) 

Plaintiff filed an additional sur-reply on December 21, 2011. (Doc. No. 96.) 

On February 9, 2012, the Court filed a Report and Recommendation on Defendants’ motion

to dismiss, recommending the motion be granted in part and denied in part. (Doc. No. 119). On

February 13, 2012, Plaintiff filed an ex parte motion for the Court to delay ruling on Defendants’

motion to dismiss until Defendants comply with a request for production of documents served

December 7, 2011. (Doc. No. 120.) On February 15, 2012, Defendants filed a response in

opposition. (Doc. No. 121.) 

In his ex parte motion, Plaintiff seeks a 90 day delay of the Court’s ruling until Defendants

comply with Plaintiff’s pending request for production of documents so that Defendants may “obtain

all file materials, evaluate what request should be prepared, and have [Defendants] to get up to speed

on the case.” (Doc. No. 120 at 3.) Defendants oppose any delay, arguing Plaintiff has not specified 

how the requested documents, which request Defendants assert they received on February 1, 2012,

could possibly affect the Court’s ruling. (Doc. No. 121.) Additionally, Defendants delineate all

of the discovery requests to which they have responded, including several requests for documents

relating to exhaustion of administrative remedies. (Id.)

The Court, for lack of good cause shown, denies Plaintiff’s ex parte motion to delay ruling

on Defendants’ motion to dismiss. Plaintiff has not specified what documents he is waiting to

receive or how any of these documents affect the Court’s ruling on Defendants’ motion to dismiss. 

As the Court previously noted in denying Plaintiff’s motions to compel discovery, “Plaintiff has

received most of the discovery he seeks to compel, including the documents relevant to exhaustion

2 10cv2642-AJB

Case 3:10-cv-02642-AJB-BGS Document 124 Filed 02/23/12 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

27

28

of his claims against Mills and Barra. It is not clear from his litany of filings what exactly

Defendants have failed to produce, what efforts Plaintiff made to informally resolve the dispute, and

how the specific discovery he has not received is relevant. (Doc. No. 116 at 4.) In the same order,

the Court also found in denying Plaintiff’s motion for a continuance of Defendants’ motion to

dismiss that Plaintiff had amble opportunity to present his argument and evidence to the Court, as

he had submitted an opposition to the motion to dismiss containing numerous exhibits totaling over

100 pages, several supplemental documents, a sur-reply, and a supplemental sur-reply. (Id. at 5.) 

Accordingly, the Court does not find good cause to delay a ruling on Defendants’ motion to dismiss.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: February 23, 2012 

BERNARD G. SKOMAL

United States Magistrate Judge

3 10cv2642-AJB

Case 3:10-cv-02642-AJB-BGS Document 124 Filed 02/23/12 Page 3 of 3