Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-00156/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-00156-30/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

BARRY LOUIS LAMON,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-06-0156 GEB KJM P

vs.

DIRECTOR, CALIFORNIA 

DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS

AND REHABILITATION, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

Plaintiff is a state prison inmate proceeding pro se with a civil rights action under

42 U.S.C. § 1983. He has filed a motion to compel discovery, a motion for assistance in getting

access to his legal property, and two motions for additional time in which to file his opposition to

the motion for summary judgment.

I. Motion To Compel

A. Defendant Ellis

Plaintiff asks the court to compel defendant Ellis to provide a copy of the videotaped use of force interview. He notes that defendant has refused to provide the video because

the request was served after the discovery cut-off date. He argues, however, in essence, that the

request was timely because defendant Ellis filed his answer after the scheduling order had

Case 2:06-cv-00156-KJM-CKD Document 189 Filed 05/21/10 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

issued. He claims “as long as I am not acting in bad-faith, the defendants should be made to

produce evidence as crucial as to this action . . . .” Docket No. 182 at 2. 

Defendants counter that neither the request nor the motion to compel are timely. 

Plaintiff’s request is disingenuous and borders on an action taken in bad faith. 

On July 1, 2009, the court established a new sixty day discovery deadline as to defendant Ellis

only. Docket No. 134. Plaintiff’s request for production was dated September 16, 2009, after

the sixty day period had expired. In addition, plaintiff received two extensions of time in which

to file motions to compel and did file a motion on October 2, 2009; he did not challenge

defendant Ellis’s refusal to provide a copy of the video-taped use of force interview, despite his

current claim that it is “totally critical” to his case. Docket No. 182 at 4; see Docket No. 154. 

Plaintiff is cautioned that he may be subject to sanctions, including dismissal of

the action, should he file additional baseless motions that misrepresent the record in this case.

B. Recording Of The Hearing To Medicate

Plaintiff alleges that he was unable to make proper notes because of the

conditions under which he listened to the recording of this hearing. Plaintiff has failed to explain

why the procedure, although possibly cumbersome, has hampered his ability to make use of the

material on the compact disc. 

II. Motion For Assistance In Obtaining Legal Materials

Plaintiff contends that officials at CSP-Corcoran will expedite the provision of

legal materials if the court clerk verifies that an inmate has a pending deadline. Plaintiff may

show officials a copy of this order, which establishes his deadline below. 

III. Motions For The Extension Of Time

Plaintiff has filed two motions for the extension of time, one asking for fifteen

days, one asking for thirty days, in which to file his opposition to the pending motion for

summary judgment. 

/////

Case 2:06-cv-00156-KJM-CKD Document 189 Filed 05/21/10 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

Defendants’ motion has been pending since September 2009. In October 2009

and January 2010, plaintiff asked that the proceedings be held in abeyance, representing that he 

would not be able to respond because of a trial that was “scheduled to last throughout March 29,

2010.” Docket No. 173 at 1. The court noted that plaintiff’s claim was misleading, because the

trial was scheduled to begin on March 29, 2010.

Plaintiff will be given the additional fifteen days he requested but no further

extensions will be granted. If his motion is not filed within that period, the court will deem the

failure to file a waiver of any opposition and will decide the motion on defendants’ papers only. 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s motion to compel (docket no. 182) is denied; 

2. Plaintiff’s request for assistance (docket no. 185) is denied;

3. Plaintiff’s motions for additional time (docket nos. 187 & 188) are granted and 

plaintiff is granted fifteen days from the date of this order in which to file and serve an

opposition to defendants’ motion for summary judgment. Defendants’ reply, if any, is due

within fourteen days of the filing of plaintiff’s opposition.

DATED: May 20, 2010. 

2/md

lamo0156.36

Case 2:06-cv-00156-KJM-CKD Document 189 Filed 05/21/10 Page 3 of 3