Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-00872/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-00872-4/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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ISRRAEL ESPINOZA,

Plaintiff,

v.

DIAZ, 

Defendant.

Case No. 1:14-cv-00872-JLT (PC)

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION 

TO CONTINUE DEFENDANT'S MOTION 

FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT and 

DIRECTING PLAINTIFF TO FILE 

OPPOSITION OR STATEMENT OF NONOPPOSITION THERETO

(Doc. 20) 

30-DAY DEADLINE

Plaintiff is proceeding against Defendant Diaz for excessive force in violation of the 

Eighth Amendment. On October 7, 2014, Defendant filed a motion to dismiss which was fully

briefed and submitted. In support of Defendant’s motion, he attached a document related to an

argument that this action is barred under Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 487-88 (1994). The 

document and its application to Plaintiff's claims may only be considered under Federal Rule of 

Civil Procedure156. The Court converted Defendant's motion to a motion for summary 

judgment. (See Docs. 16-18.) The Court issued an order on July 21, 2015 notifying Plaintiff of 

his rights and requirements for opposing the motion pursuant to Woods v. Carey, Nos. 09-15548, 

09-16113, 2012 WL 262 6912 (9th Cir. Jul. 6, 2012), Wyatt v. Terhune, 315 F.3d 1108 (9th Cir. 

 

1

The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure will hereinafter be referred to as ARule *.@ Any reference to other statutory 

authorities shall so indicate.

Case 1:14-cv-00872-LJO-JLT Document 21 Filed 08/20/15 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

2003), Rand v. Rowland, 154 F.3d 952 (9th Cir. 1998), and Klingele v. Eikenberry, 849 F.2d 409 

(9th Cir. 1988). (Doc. 19.) 

On August 17, 2015, Plaintiff filed a motion requesting the Court continue Defendant's 

motion for summary judgment to allow him to conduct discovery. (Doc. 20.) Defendant's time to 

file an opposition has yet to lapse, but there will not be prejudice by early issuance of this order

since it denies Plaintiff's motion. The Court construes Plaintiff’s motion as one to defer 

consideration of Defendant's motion for summary judgment under rule 56(d).

Rule 56(d) provides that “[i]f a nonmovant shows by affidavit or declaration that, for 

specified reasons, it cannot present facts essential to justify its opposition, the court may: (1) defer 

considering the motion or deny it; (2) allow time to obtain affidavits or declarations or to take 

discovery; or (3) issue any other appropriate order.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(d). In seeking relief 

under Rule 56(d), Plaintiff bears the burden of specifically identifying relevant information, 

where there is some basis for believing that the information actually exists, and demonstrating 

that the evidence sought actually exists and that it would prevent summary judgment. Blough v. 

Holland Realty, Inc., 574 F.3d 1084, 1091 n.5 (9th Cir. 2009) (quotation marks and citation 

omitted); Getz v. Boeing Co., 654 F.3d 852, 867-68 (9th Cir. 2011); Tatum v. City and County of 

San Francisco, 441 F.3d 1090, 1100-01 (9th Cir. 2006). Plaintiff has made no such showing. 

Plaintiff indicates that he believes that Defendant has "a prior history of using excessive 

force and excessive use of O.C. pepper-spray" and that several 602 inmate appeals have been 

filed against Defendant for excessive use of force. (Doc. 20, pp. 2-3.) However, Plaintiff's bare 

desire to conduct discovery that he thinks may show that Defendant has engaged in acts of 

excessive force in the past does not entitle him to relief under Rule 56(d). Naoko Ohno v. Yuko 

Yasuma, 723 F.3d 984, 1013 n.29 (9th Cir. 2013) (evidence to be sought through discovery must 

be based on more than mere speculation). 

Further, Defendant's motion seeks dismissal on three grounds: (1) that Plaintiff has failed 

to allege sufficient facts to state a claim for excessive force under the Eighth Amendment; (2) that 

Plaintiff's claim is barred by Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994); and (3) that Defendant is 

Case 1:14-cv-00872-LJO-JLT Document 21 Filed 08/20/15 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

entitled to qualified immunity. Whether Defendant has engaged in acts of excessive force about

which other inmates have complained (which Plaintiff hopes to reveal in discovery) does not 

address Plaintiff's factual allegations regarding the incident at issue in this action; whether

Plaintiff's claim is barred by Heck; or whether Defendant is entitled to qualified immunity. All 

three of Defendant's arguments raise legal issues, rather than factual challenges, which formal 

discovery would not refute. Plaintiff fails to make a showing to the contrary. Therefore, the 

Court DENIES Plaintiff’s motion without prejudice.

Accordingly, based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s motion to continue/delay ruling on Defendant's motion for summary 

judgment, filed on August 17, 2015 (Doc. 20), is denied; and

2. Within 30 days from the date of service of this order, Plaintiff must either:

(1) file a Rule 56(d) motion which complies with the specific requirements 

identified in this order, or 

(2) file an opposition or a statement of non-opposition to Defendant’s motion for 

summary judgment.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 20, 2015 /s/ Jennifer L. Thurston 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:14-cv-00872-LJO-JLT Document 21 Filed 08/20/15 Page 3 of 3