Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_09-cv-01013/USCOURTS-azd-2_09-cv-01013-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 555
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Prison Condition
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

Upon screening, the Court dismissed Buchanan, Lacy, Flowers, Coberg, Zaborsky, Salak,

and Garibay as Defendants (Doc. # 8 at 6). 

JWB

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Cedric Jordan, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Charles Ryan, et al., 

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 09-1013-PHX-DGC (ECV)

ORDER

Plaintiff Cedric Jordan brought this civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against

various Arizona Department of Corrections (ADC) officials: ADC Director Charles Ryan;

Deputy Warden Delena Carrillo; Complex Warden William White; Sergeant Deepe; and

Correctional Officers A. Sambora, Bilderback and Rabb (Doc. # 6 at 1-2).1

 Before the Court

is Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment and Defendants’ Motion to Strike Plaintiff’s

Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. ## 25, 30). The motion to strike is fully briefed (Doc.

## 32-33). The Court will deny both motions. 

I. Background and Pending Motions

Plaintiff filed this action in May 2009. His First Amended Complaint was filed in July

2009. Doc. ## 1, 6. The Court screened Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint and determined

that Plaintiff sufficiently stated a claim against Sambora, Ryan, Carrillo, White, and Deepe

for threats to safety in violation of the Eighth Amendment (Count I; Doc. # 6 at 7-12). The

Case 2:09-cv-01013-DGC Document 36 Filed 04/19/10 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

2

The Court dismissed Count III for failure to state a claim (Doc. # 8).

- 2 -

Court also found that Plaintiff stated a claim against Bilderback and Rabb for retaliation in

violation of the First Amendment (Count II; id. at 13-15).2

The Court ordered Defendants to respond to the First Amended Complaint (Doc. # 8),

and Defendants filed their Answer on December 4, 2009 (Doc. # 17). On January 5, 2010,

Plaintiff filed a Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. # 25). Shortly thereafter, on

February 3, 2010, the Court issued a Scheduling Order, which set a discovery deadline of

October 7, 2010, and a dispositive-motions deadline of December 7, 2010 (Doc. # 31). 

In support of his summary judgment motion, Plaintiff submitted his unsworn

declaration and a copy of the First Amended Complaint in this action (Doc. # 25, Attachs.).

 In lieu of a response, Defendants moved to strike Plaintiff’s summary judgment

motion on the grounds that Plaintiff’s Statement of Facts does not comply with the Local

Rules of Civil Procedure and the summary judgment motion is premature because they have

not had time to engage in discovery (Doc. # 30). In the alternative, Defendants requested an

extension of time to respond to Plaintiff’s motion after discovery is completed (id.).

 Plaintiff opposed the Motion to Strike and maintained that his summary judgment

motion is sufficient and not premature. He claimed that the Motion to Strike is a delay tactic

(Doc. #16). Defendants deny that they are trying to stall the case (Doc. #17). They again

argue that Plaintiff’s Statement of Facts is deficient and that incomplete discovery makes the

motion premature (id.).

II. Analysis

A court must grant summary judgment if the pleadings and supporting documents,

viewed in the light most favorable to the non-moving party, “show that there is no genuine

issue as to any material fact and that the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.”

Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c); see also Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322-23 (1986). Under

summary judgment practice, the movant bears the initial responsibility of presenting the basis

for its motion and identifying those portions of the record, together with affidavits, that it

Case 2:09-cv-01013-DGC Document 36 Filed 04/19/10 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

- 3 -

believes demonstrate the absence of a genuine issue of material fact. Celotex Corp., 477 U.S.

at 323. Summary judgment should not be entered where relevant evidence remains to be

discovered. See Klingele v. Eikenberry, 849 F.2d 409, 412 (9th Cir. 1988). 

In light of the virtually non-existent evidentiary record, summary judgment at this

stage would be premature. No discovery has taken place, and it is plain from the Court’s

review of Plaintiff’s motion that his claims have not been thoroughly developed. The Court

will therefore deny Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment without prejudice to refiling

after discovery has occurred. Defendants’ Motion to Strike will be denied as moot. 

IT IS ORDERED:

(1) The reference to the Magistrate Judge is withdrawn as to Plaintiff’s Motion for

Summary Judgment (Doc. # 25) and Defendants’ Motion to Strike (Doc. # 30).

(2) Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. # 25) is denied without prejudice.

(3) Defendants’ Motion to Strike (Doc. # 30) is denied as moot.

 DATED this 19th day of April, 2010.

Case 2:09-cv-01013-DGC Document 36 Filed 04/19/10 Page 3 of 3