Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-04108/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-04108-5/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

1

On May 18, 2007, the Court dismissed the complaint against defendant Zingler

without prejudice after plaintiff failed to effect service on Zingler under Federal Rule of Civil

Procedure 4(m). 

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

KEITH W. CANDLER,

Plaintiff,

 v.

M.S. EVANS, et al.,

Defendants. ___________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C 05-4108 MMC (PR)

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S

MOTION TO VERBALLY TESTIFY

IN OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR

SUMMARY JUDGMENT

(Docket No. 60) 

On October 12, 2005, plaintiff, a California prisoner incarcerated at Salinas Valley

State Prison and proceeding pro se, filed the above-titled civil rights action pursuant to 42

U.S.C. § 1983. On December 11, 2006, the Court ordered plaintiff’s claims for deliberate

indifference to his safety and serious medical needs (“deliberate indifference claims”) served

on defendants Captain J.W. Lewis (“Lewis”), Sergeant B. O’Kane (“O’Kane”), Lieutenant J.

Hughes (“Hughes”), Correctional Officer W. Wilson (“Wilson”), Nurse M. Ayaay (“Ayaay”)

and Nurse Zingler (“Zingler”), and ordered plaintiff’s claim for denial of access to the courts

served on Correctional Officer J.J. McAnelly. 

On June 11, 2007, defendants Lewis, O’Kane, Hughes, Wilson and Ayaay filed a

motion for summary judgment with respect to plaintiff’s deliberate indifference claims.1

 On

Case 3:05-cv-04108-MMC Document 69 Filed 03/28/08 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

2

July 11, 2007, plaintiff filed an opposition to the motion for summary judgment. The

opposition is comprised of: (1) a fifteen-page document titled “Material Facts Statement and

Evidence,” which document includes a recitation of disputed material facts and

accompanying legal argument; (2) an eleven-page declaration in which plaintiff presents

facts in support of his deliberate indifference claims that contradict the facts put forth by

defendants in support of their motion for summary judgment; (3) a document titled

“Plaintiff’s Exhibits in Opposition to Defendants Summary Judgment Motion,” which

document consists of thirty-nine pages of exhibits and each of defendants Lewis, O’Kane,

Hughes, Wilson and Ayaay’s individual responses to plaintiff’s first set of interrogatories;

and (4) a document titled “Motion to Allow Plaintiff to Verbally Testify in My Behalf,” by

which motion plaintiff seeks to offer oral testimony in opposition to defendants’ motion for

summary judgment. The last of the above-referenced filings is the subject of this order. 

The Civil Local Rules of this District provide as follows: “No oral testimony will be

received in connection with any motion, unless otherwise ordered by the assigned Judge.” 

See Civil L.R. 7-6. In the instant case, plaintiff moves the Court to allow him to present oral

testimony by way of video conference from the California State Prison at Sacramento, where

he currently is incarcerated. In support of his request, plaintiff states: “Plaintiff could use

this method to tell my story and answer any questions that the courts [sic] may want to ask.” 

(Mot. at 1:23-25.) Plaintiff brings his motion under Rule 56(f) of the Federal Rules of Civil

Procedure. 

Rule 56(f) provides, in relevant part:

Should it appear from the affidavits of a party opposing the motion [for

summary judgment] that the party cannot for reasons stated present by affidavit

facts essential to justify the party’s opposition, the court may refuse the

application for judgment or may order a continuance to permit affidavits to be

obtained or depositions to be taken or discovery to be had or may make such

other order as is just.

Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(f). 

In their opposition to the instant motion, filed July 17, 2007, defendants argue that

plaintiff should not be allowed to give oral testimony in opposition to the motion for

Case 3:05-cv-04108-MMC Document 69 Filed 03/28/08 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

3

summary judgment because he has already submitted his own declaration in support of his

opposition, and he gives no indication that he intends to add anything beyond his declaration

or that he has information to present to the Court that cannot be disclosed by way of

declaration. 

In making a Rule 56(f) motion, a party opposing summary judgment must make clear

“what information is sought and how it would preclude summary judgment.” Margolis v.

Ryan, 140 F.3d 850, 853 (9th Cir. 1998). Here, plaintiff does not identify, or argue he is

unable to present by declaration, facts essential to his opposition, and the record does not

support such a determination. Rather, as discussed above, plaintiff has submitted in support

of his opposition an eleven-page declaration presenting facts that contradict those put forth

by defendants, and also has submitted more than sixty pages of exhibits. The reasons

plaintiff asserts for allowing him to orally testify, specifically, to provide him an opportunity

to tell his story and answer any questions the Court might have, are insufficient. Plaintiff has

been provided the opportunity to tell his story by way of the allegations in his verified

complaint and his declaration; further, if the Court determines that issues material to the

motion for summary judgment have not been adequately addressed by the parties’

submissions, the Court will so inform the parties when it rules on said motion. 

In sum, plaintiff has not made a sufficient showing under Rule 56(f), and,

consequently, the Court finds plaintiff is not entitled to present further evidence in support of

his opposition by way of oral testimony.

Accordingly, the motion is hereby DENIED.

This order terminates Docket No. 60.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: March 28, 2008 ____________________________

MAXINE M. CHESNEY

United States District Judge 

Case 3:05-cv-04108-MMC Document 69 Filed 03/28/08 Page 3 of 3