Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_10-cv-03784/USCOURTS-cand-5_10-cv-03784-18/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

Order Addressing Plaintiff’s Pending Motions

P:\PRO-SE\RMW\CR old\CR.10\Pina784misc3.wpd

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

PABLO P. PINA, 

Plaintiff,

 v.

LIEUTENANT DIGGLE,

Defendant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C 10-3784 RMW (PR)

ORDER ADDRESSING

PLAINTIFF’S PENDING

MOTIONS

(Docket Nos. 80, 107, 110, 114)

Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, filed a third amended civil rights complaint pursuant to 42

U.S.C. § 1983. On March 16, 2015, defendant filed a motion for summary judgment. (Docket

No. 92.) On April 27, 2015, this court denied plaintiff’s motion to compel, denied plaintiff’s

motion for an extension of time to conduct discovery, granted plaintiff an extension of time to

file an opposition, and granted plaintiff’s request to obtain declarations from inmates, subject to

conditions. (Docket No. 106.)

Plaintiff has filed a motion to reconsider the court’s denial of plaintiff’s motion to

compel. (Docket No. 110.) Because plaintiff has not presented the court with newly discovered

evidence, shown that the court committed clear error or that the court’s decision was manifestly

unjust, or alleged that there was an intervening change in controlling law, the motion is

DENIED. See School Dist. No. 1J v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1263 (9th Cir. 1993).

On April 27, 2015, the court ordered that plaintiff was permitted to send a one-time

correspondence to specifically named inmates with the requirement that the correspondence

(),/('

Case 5:10-cv-03784-RMW Document 121 Filed 06/12/15 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

27

28

Order Addressing Plaintiff’s Pending Motions

P:\PRO-SE\RMW\CR old\CR.10\Pina784misc3.wpd 2

comply with applicable prison security rules and regulations. On May 12, 2015, defense counsel

submitted a response indicating that normally, when courts issue an order allowing

correspondence between inmates, defense counsel and the prisoner-plaintiff work together to

agree upon the contents of the one-time correspondence. Then, the

litigation coordinator of the prisoner where the prisoner-plaintiff is held electronically sends that

correspondence to the litigation coordinators of the institutions where the other inmates are held. 

Here, defense counsel has informed the court that plaintiff and counsel agreed upon the

correspondence as to all inmates except inmate Alfred Sosa because plaintiff wished to draft a

separate correspondence to Sosa. On May 14, 2015, plaintiff filed a motion for clarification of

the court’s April 27, 2015 order. Plaintiff argues that nowhere in the order does it require

plaintiff to communicate and agree with defense counsel as to the content of the correspondence,

or the number of declarations the other inmates may send in support of plaintiff’s lawsuit. 

Plaintiff’s motion for clarification is GRANTED.

As the court stated in its previous order, it is reluctant to get involved with prison

procedures and policies regarding the specific rules of communication between inmates. 

Defense counsel has indicated that the procedure he laid out was the “only way . . . to allow such

correspondence” in order to comply with the prison regulations and procedures. The court

expresses no opinion on the propriety of such a procedure. The court merely restates that

plaintiff is permitted to send a one-time correspondence to the inmates indicated in the court’s

April 27, 2015 order with the condition that the correspondence use the appropriate prison

request forms and channels, and comply with applicable prison security rules and regulations.

Plaintiff’s opposition to the motion for summary judgment was due on May 27, 2015. 

On May 22, 2015, plaintiff filed another request for an extension of time. (Docket No. 117.) In

plaintiff’s request, he states that he is having a difficult time obtaining the prisoner declarations. 

Plaintiff states that he is also still have problems obtaining discovery from prison officials. 

However, in the court’s April 27, 2015 order, the court denied plaintiff’s request to extend the

deadline for his opposition on the basis that plaintiff needed to complete discovery because

plaintiff failed to comply with the requirements of Rule 56(d). Thus, to the extent plaintiff is

Case 5:10-cv-03784-RMW Document 121 Filed 06/12/15 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

27

28

Order Addressing Plaintiff’s Pending Motions

P:\PRO-SE\RMW\CR old\CR.10\Pina784misc3.wpd 3

asking for more time within which to conduct discovery, that request is denied. Plaintiff’s

opposition shall be filed no later than twenty-eight days from the filing date of this order. 

Defendant’s reply shall be filed fourteen days thereafter. Absent exigent circumstances, no

further requests for an extension of time will be granted. 

Plaintiff’s “notice of motion and motion requesting a trial by jury” is essentially a

response to defendant’s answer. (Docket No. 76.) To the extent plaintiff is requesting that the

court take notice that plaintiff is requesting a jury trial, plaintiff’s request is granted. To the

extent plaintiff is requesting that the court acknowledge that summary judgment is not

appropriate, the court declines to do so at this time. That portion of the motion is denied without

prejudice.

This order terminates docket numbers 80, 107, 110, and 114.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: RONALD M. WHYTE

United States District Judge

Case 5:10-cv-03784-RMW Document 121 Filed 06/12/15 Page 3 of 4
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

PABLO P. PINA,

Plaintiff,

 v.

LIEUTENANT DIGGLE,

Defendant. /

Case Number: CV10-03784 RMW 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I, the undersigned, hereby certify that I am an employee in the Office of the Clerk, U.S. District

Court, Northern District of California.

That on June 12, 2015, I SERVED a true and correct copy(ies) of the attached, by placing said

copy(ies) in a postage paid envelope addressed to the person(s) hereinafter listed, by depositing

said envelope in the U.S. Mail, or by placing said copy(ies) into an inter-office delivery

receptacle located in the Clerk's office.

Pablo P. Pina D-28079

Corcoran State Prison

PO Box 5244

SAT-F/ASU-178.

Corcoran, CA 93212

Dated: June 12, 2015

Richard W. Wieking, Clerk

By: Jackie Lynn Garcia, Deputy Clerk

Case 5:10-cv-03784-RMW Document 121 Filed 06/12/15 Page 4 of 4