Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_12-cv-00556/USCOURTS-caed-2_12-cv-00556-7/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

27

28

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CLARENCE A. GIPBSIN,

Plaintiff,

v.

SCOTT KERNAN, et al.,

Defendants.

No. 2:12-cv-0556 GEB DAD P

ORDER

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

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Pending before the court are several of plaintiff’s motions. Below, 

the court will address each motion in turn.

First, plaintiff has filed a motion to compel defendants to produce the correct name and 

address for defendant R. Gamez, Associate Chief Deputy Warden at High Desert State Prison at 

the time of the events alleged in plaintiff’s complaint. On the same day that plaintiff filed his 

motion to compel, he also filed a USM-285 form for defendant Gamez and the other necessary 

service documents as previously ordered by this court. Based on the information plaintiff 

provided on the form USM-285 he submitted, this court ordered the United States Marshal to 

attempt service of defendant Gamez. Several months have passed since the court issued its 

service order. Accordingly, the court recently contacted the United States Marshal and learned 

that if the Marshal is unable to obtain a waiver of service from the California Department of 

Case 2:12-cv-00556-KJM-DB Document 104 Filed 03/02/15 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

2

Corrections and Rehabilitation in the immediate future, the Marshal will pursue personal service 

with respect to this defendant. Under these circumstances, the court will deny plaintiff’s motion

to compel without prejudice. If the United States Marshal is unable to effect service on defendant 

R. Gamez and returns a waiver of service unexecuted, plaintiff may use the discovery process 

and/or renew his motion to compel at that time to determine this defendant’s full name and 

whereabouts. 

Plaintiff has also filed two motions for entry of default against defendants. These motions 

are without merit. Contrary to plaintiff’s argument, all of the defendants who had been properly 

served at the time plaintiff filed his motions for entry of default have timely responded by filing a 

motion to dismiss plaintiff’s complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). 

(Doc. Nos. 84, 85, 88 & 93) In this regard, the defendants have not “failed to plead or otherwise 

defend.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(a). Accordingly, the court will deny plaintiff’s motions for entry of 

default.

Next, plaintiff has filed a motion for a status conference. Plaintiff is advised that this 

court typically does not hold status conferences in cases where a prisoner is proceeding pro se. 

See L.R. 240(c)(8). In terms of the status of this action, plaintiff is advised that once service of 

process is complete, the court will address defendants’ pending motions to dismiss. If plaintiff’s 

complaint survives the motions to dismiss, defendants will be required to file an answer to his

complaint, and thereafter the court will issue a discovery and scheduling order for this matter. At 

this time, no status conference is warranted. Accordingly, the court will deny plaintiff’s motion 

for a status conference.

Finally, plaintiff has filed a motion for summary judgment. Upon review of plaintiff’s 

motion, the court observes that it is defective because it does not comply with Rule 56 of the 

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure or Local Rule 260(a). Rule 56(c)(1) requires a party to support 

his or her factual position by:

citing to particular parts of materials in the record, including 

depositions, documents, electronically stored information, affidavits 

or declarations, stipulations (including those made for purposes of 

the motion only), admissions, interrogatory answers, or other 

materials.

Case 2:12-cv-00556-KJM-DB Document 104 Filed 03/02/15 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

3

Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c)(1). 

Similarly, Local Rule 260(a) requires that a motion for summary judgment 

be accompanied by a “Statement of Undisputed Facts” that shall 

enumerate discretely each of the specific material facts relied upon 

in support of the motion and cite the particular portions of any 

pleading, affidavit, deposition, interrogatory answer, admission, or 

other document relied upon to establish that fact. 

L.R. 260(a).

In this case, plaintiff has not cited to specific parts of the record or evidence submitted in 

support of his purported statement of undisputed or stipulated facts. In addition, in lieu of 

submitting an affidavit in support of his motion for summary judgment, plaintiff has submitted a 

copy of his second amended complaint with a cover sheet declaring that all of the statements 

made in his complaint are true and correct. Plaintiff is advised that any affidavit he submits in 

support of a motion for summary judgment in the future must be based on “personal knowledge, 

set out facts that would be admissible in evidence, and show that the affiant or declarant is 

competent to testify on the matters stated.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c)(4). Any such affidavit may not 

be based purely on his belief. See Schroeder v. McDonald, 55 F.3d 454, 460 (9th Cir. 1995). 

Finally, because plaintiff will bear the burden of proof at trial, in order to prevail on a motion for 

summary judgment in his favor plaintiff must affirmatively demonstrate that based upon the 

undisputed facts no reasonable trier of fact could find other than for him on the claim in question. 

See Soremekun v. Thrifty Payless, Inc., 509 F.3d 978, 984 (9th Cir. 2007). It is not enough that 

the allegations of plaintiff’s complaint appear to state a cognizable claim for relief against

defendants for their involvement in the delay of his mental health treatment. 

Under these circumstances, the court will deny plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment 

without prejudice to renewal after this court issues a discovery and scheduling order. Any such 

renewed motion must lay out each separate statement of undisputed fact and cite to corresponding

/////

/////

/////

/////

Case 2:12-cv-00556-KJM-DB Document 104 Filed 03/02/15 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

27

28

4

evidence attached to the motion, which plaintiff believes demonstrates the absence of a genuine 

issue of material fact.1 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s motion to compel (Doc. No. 81) is denied without prejudice;

2. Plaintiff’s motions for entry of default against defendants (Doc. Nos. 92 & 95) are 

denied;

3. Plaintiff’s motion for a status conference (Doc. No. 99) is denied; 

4. Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment (Doc. No. 100) is denied without prejudice to 

renewal after this court issues a discovery and scheduling order; and

5. Defendants’ motion for a court order relieving them from having to respond to 

plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment (Doc. No. 103) is denied as unnecessary. 

Dated: March 1, 2015

DAD:9

gipb.mtc

 

1 Defendants have filed a motion for a court order relieving them from having to respond to 

plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment until the court rules on defendants’ pending motions to 

dismiss. In light of the court’s denial of plaintiff’s pending motion for summary judgment 

without prejudice, the court will also deny defendants’ motion for relief as unnecessary. 

Case 2:12-cv-00556-KJM-DB Document 104 Filed 03/02/15 Page 4 of 4