Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_09-cv-02929/USCOURTS-caed-2_09-cv-02929-19/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

GREGORY NORWOOD,

Plaintiff, No. 2:09-cv-2929 LKK GGH P

vs.

NANGANAMA, et al.,

Defendants.

ORDER

 /

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis who seeks

relief pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On April 19, 2012, the undersigned recommended that

defendant’s motion for summary judgment be denied. On May 3, 2012, defendant filed

objections and essentially a new motion for summary judgment and requested to be allowed to

submit the new motion for summary judgment and the new evidence based on counsel’s

excusable neglect. On July 11, 2012, the district judge assigned to this case remanded the matter

back to the undersigned to determine whether defendant’s proposed reply should be late-filed

and considered part of the summary judgment motion.

The discovery and scheduling order in this case stated that pretrial motions were

due by December 23, 2011, yet defendant did not file a summary judgment motion by that date. 

1

Case 2:09-cv-02929-JAM-AC Document 81 Filed 07/13/12 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

Doc. 58. Based on the procedural issues with serving other defendants in this case and as there

could be some confusion, on January 30, 2012, the undersigned issued an order to defendant that

within 14 days he shall state if he intends to file a dispositive motion. Doc. 66. Defendant filed

a motion for summary judgment on February 13, 2012. Defendant, in contradiction to local rules

as plaintiff is proceeding pro se, set the matter down for oral argument before the undersigned. 

The court hearing was vacated and plaintiff was reminded that he must still file an opposition. 

The undersigned did not specifically tell defendant to file a reply, as that is explicitly set out in

the local rules and defendant of course is represented by counsel. The undersigned issued

findings and recommendations on April 19, 2012, that stated in part:

Despite these glaring deficiencies in plaintiff’s action, the instant motion for

summary judgment was brought by defendant, who bears the burden of

demonstrating the absence of a genuine issue of material fact. In the complaint,

plaintiff alleges that defendant told him that he knew plaintiff had “bugs” but

defendant did not want to subject medical personnel to a civil lawsuit so

defendant would prescribe treatment only for a skin infection, as the medical

department did not have any other medication. SAC at 3. Defendant did not

address this allegation in the motion for summary judgment. In fact, there is no

declaration from defendant Byers regarding the underlying facts of this case. In

his opposition, plaintiff again sets forth this allegation as an undisputed fact, and

defendant did not file a reply to refute it, nor did defendant ever address it. In

both the complaint and the opposition to summary judgment, plaintiff swore to

these facts under the penalty of perjury. The allegation is also presented in

plaintiff’s deposition that defendant has included as an exhibit. MTD, Exh. A at

21-22. Therefore, the undersigned must view this as an undisputed fact and

plaintiff has demonstrated that a genuine issue as to a material fact exists. This

undisputed material fact could show that defendant was deliberately indifferent to

plaintiff’s serious medical needs by purposely misdiagnosing plaintiff in order to

avoid civil liability for the medical department. This could demonstrate a

constitutional violation and must be determined at trial.

Doc 75 at 9-10.

In his objections, defendant’s counsel seeks to introduce new evidence, arguments

and declarations and essentially refile the motion for summary judgment, pursuant to

Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(1). Counsel states he misunderstood the court’s order about the intention

to file a dispositive order within 14 days as an order that a motion had to be filed within 14 days. 

Counsel also states he misunderstood the local rules and that he would be allowed to file a reply. 

2

Case 2:09-cv-02929-JAM-AC Document 81 Filed 07/13/12 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

Rule 60(b)(1) involves a final judgment or order, neither of which is applicable in the instant

case that involves findings and recommendations. Any attempt to frame the issue as involving a

late filed reply is equally meritless. Not even a liberal construction of defendant’s filing could

classify it as a reply to plaintiff’s opposition. Defendant wants to file a new motion for summary

judgment that specifically addresses the deficiencies noted in the findings and recommendations. 

Nor do counsel’s errors, of course, themselves warrant any type of relief or a second bite of the

summary judgment apple.

However, on the other hand, the undersigned noted in the findings and

recommendations the many potential deficiencies in plaintiff’s action. The undersigned further

notes the difficulties in serving the remaining defendants, difficulties which are well set out in

the docket of this case. In all probability these defendants, once appearing, will seek to file

dispositive motions as well; it is unlikely therefore that plaintiff would be prejudiced in terms of

time in not having this case set for trial immediately. The issue becomes one of weighing

whether sufficient prejudice to plaintiff in terms of having to oppose another motion outweighs

the need to be efficient in reaching the correct and just result on the merits.

Given all the circumstances, the undersigned opts for fairness and efficiency with

respect to the merits. Judicial economy and the exorbitant caseload in this district warrant

intervention to prevent a questionable case proceeding to trial, despite the errors of defendant in

the initial summary judgment motion. 

However, also in the interests of judicial economy, the undersigned will not

immediately review a new motion for summary judgment. The former motion for summary

judgment and the findings and recommendations will be vacated, and defendant may re-notice

his motion for summary judgment when the remaining defendants have been served and a

dispositive motion has been filed on their behalf. If no dispositive motions are filed by either of

the remaining defendants, the court will issue an appropriate order.

/////

3

Case 2:09-cv-02929-JAM-AC Document 81 Filed 07/13/12 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

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that defendant’s motion for summary

judgment (Doc. 70) and the findings and recommendations (Doc. 75) are vacated. Defendant

may re-notice his motion for summary judgment when the remaining defendants have been

served and a dispositive motion has been filed. If no dispositive motions are filed by either of the

remaining defendants, the court will issue an appropriate order.

DATED: July 13, 2012

 /s/ Gregory G. Hollows 

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

GGH: AB - norw2929.ord10

4

Case 2:09-cv-02929-JAM-AC Document 81 Filed 07/13/12 Page 4 of 4