Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_16-cv-00624/USCOURTS-caed-2_16-cv-00624-9/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 

DIRK JAONG BOUIE, JR., 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

R. WILLOX, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. 2:16-cv-0624 JAM AC P 

ORDER 

 Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 

§ 1983, has requested leave to withdraw his opposition to defendants’ pending motion for 

summary judgment in light of the court’s February 24, 2020 order extending his deadline to file a 

motion to compel discovery. ECF No. 52. The motion will be denied. 

 On August 12, 2019, shortly after the court issued the discovery and scheduling order in 

this case, defendants filed their motion for summary judgment based on failure to exhaust. ECF 

No. 29. Plaintiff then requested an extension of time to respond, in part so that he could conduct 

discovery. ECF No. 30. The request was granted, ECF No. 31, and on September 4, 2019, 

plaintiff proceeded to file a timely opposition to the summary-judgment motion without any 

further requests for extension, ECF No. 32.1 Plaintiff later filed objections to defendants’ 

1

 The opposition was filed prior to the original September 6, 2019 deadline. 

Case 2:16-cv-00624-JAM-AC Document 53 Filed 04/02/20 Page 1 of 2
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 

responses to discovery, which the court construed as a motion to compel, in which he stated that 

he had served discovery requests on defendants on October 6, 2019, and December 17, 2019. 

ECF No. 38. The motion was denied, and plaintiff was given leave to file a new motion to 

compel related to his requests served on October 6, 2019.2 ECF No. 39 at 3. However, plaintiff 

was not given leave to file a further motion to compel as to the requests served on December 17, 

2019, because they were untimely. Id. On February 24, 2020, the court granted plaintiff an 

extension of time to file his motion to compel. ECF No. 49. 

 Plaintiff’s motion for an extension of time to file an opposition to the motion for summary 

judgment indicates that he knew at that time that he needed to conduct discovery in order to 

respond to the motion. ECF No. 30. However, despite requesting additional time in order to 

conduct such discovery, he instead chose to file his opposition within the original deadline and 

without requesting discovery, and then waited another month before submitting his first discovery 

requests. Now, six months after filing his opposition to the motion for summary judgment, 

plaintiff requests that he be allowed to withdraw his opposition in order to conduct discovery and 

submit a new opposition. ECF No. 52. He provides no justification for his failure to seek 

discovery prior to filing his opposition, despite believing such discovery was necessary over six 

months ago. Nor does plaintiff explain why he failed to take advantage of the extension he was 

granted or to request an extension of time to submit his opposition if he was unable to complete 

his discovery prior to the deadline. Plaintiff’s request is excessively untimely and made without 

explanation for said untimeliness. 

 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s request to withdraw his 

opposition to the motion for summary judgment, ECF No. 52, is denied. 

DATED: April 1, 2020 

2

 A subsequent motion indicates that he served his requests on October 3, 2019, and that he had 

also served requests for documents on September 28, 2019. ECF No. 40 at 1. 

Case 2:16-cv-00624-JAM-AC Document 53 Filed 04/02/20 Page 2 of 2