Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_06-cv-00375/USCOURTS-cand-4_06-cv-00375-5/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 555
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Prison Condition
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LORENZO FOSSELMAN JR.,

Plaintiff,

 v.

RANDOLPH GIBBS, M.D.; ALLISON

BRAGER; C. KATES, LVN; CHARLES

DUDLEY LEE, M.D., Health Care

Manager; and C. MATHEWS, MTA, 

Defendants. /

No. C 06-0375 PJH (PR)

.

ORDER GRANTING IN PART

AND DENYING IN PART

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO

RECONSIDER; REFERRAL

OF SANCTIONS QUESTION

TO MAGISTRATE JUDGE

This is a civil rights case filed pro se by a state prisoner. On October 1, 2009, the

court denied plaintiff’s motion for sanctions because he had not filed a reply to dispute

defendants’ representation that all discovery had been provided. Plaintiff’s request to deny

the motion for summary judgment or stay ruling on it was denied because he did not

explain how the discovery he contemplated would prevent entry of summary judgment. 

The court subsequently granted plaintiff’s motion for leave to file a motion to

reconsider, ordered the motion to reconsider to be filed, and ordered defendants to either

oppose the motion or file a notice of non-opposition. The have filed a notice of nonopposition.

Plaintiff has established that at the time of the ruling on the motion for sanctions he

did not have his legal materials, they having been lost by the department of corrections,

and thus was unable to determine whether defendants’ contention that they had complied

with the court’s order for discovery was correct. He says that the discovery still has not

been provided. The motion for reconsideration (document number 96) is GRANTED as to

the ruling on the motion for sanctions. 

Case 4:06-cv-00375-PJH Document 102 Filed 03/02/10 Page 1 of 2
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

Although the statement of non-opposition from defendants might be taken as a

concession that sanctions are appropriate, the court will leave that question open and refer

the motion to a magistrate judge. The denial of the motion for sanctions is VACATED. The

motion for sanctions (document number 86) is REFERRED to Magistrate Judge Nador

Vadas to determine if the motion should be granted, and if so, what sanctions should be

imposed. The referral does not affect submission of the motion for summary judgment. 

Plaintiff’s motion to deny the motion for summary judgment or to delay ruling on it

was based on his contention that he needed more time for discovery. He still has not

shown how the information he seeks would prevent entry of summary judgment, but only

says that he has not yet received the discovery that is the subject of the motion for

sanctions. That is not enough. See Margolis v. Ryan, 140 F.3d 850, 853-54 (9th Cir. 1998)

(party making a Rule 56(f) motion must make clear "what information is sought and how it

would preclude summary judgment."). The motion to reconsider (document number 96) is

DENIED as to the Rule 56(f) motion.

The clerk shall provide a copy of this order to Magistrate Judge Vadas. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 2, 2010. 

 PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON

United States District Judge

P:\PRO-SE\PJH\CR.06\FOSSELMAN375.RECON-grant-refer.wpd 

Case 4:06-cv-00375-PJH Document 102 Filed 03/02/10 Page 2 of 2