Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-00233/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-00233-15/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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

EDWARD ONTIVEROS, No. CIV S-06-0233-LKK-CMK-P

Plaintiff, 

vs. ORDER

KERNAN, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, brings this civil rights action pursuant

to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Pending before the court is plaintiff’s “Request for Discovery Under Rule

56(f)” (Doc. 62), filed pursuant to the court’s August 27, 2007, order. Defendants have filed an

opposition (Doc. 63). 

On August 27, 2007, the court issued an order denying plaintiff’s motions to

compel as untimely. Because defendants had filed a motion for summary judgment by that time,

the court granted plaintiff leave to file a motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(f) for

leave to conduct additional discovery. The court informed plaintiff that a Rule 56(f) motion

would have to demonstrate how additional discovery would uncover evidence to defeat summary

judgment. 

This action proceeds on plaintiff’s due process claim regarding parole. 

Specifically, he seeks prospective relief in the form of an order to remove allegedly false

documents from his central file so that his future chances of parole are not jeopardized. In their

motion for summary judgment, defendants argue, among other things, that the administrative

Case 2:06-cv-00233-LKK -CMK Document 64 Filed 09/28/07 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

2

appeal process cured any possible due process violation. Defendants point to evidence that

plaintiff’s administrative appeal was granted and that the documents in question were expunged

from his central file. 

In order to be entitled to leave to conduct additional discovery under Rule 56(f),

the moving party must show that additional discovery would uncover specific facts which would

preclude summary judgment. See Maljack Products, Inc. v. Goodtimes Home Video Corp., 81

F.3d 881, 888 (9th Cir. 1996). Plaintiff has not demonstrated in his instant request for discovery

how additional discovery would uncover evidence to defeat summary judgment. In his request,

plaintiff complains of alleged “document tampering” at Mule Creek State Prison. Specifically,

he claims that prison officials “illegally opened incoming mail from U.S. Senator Dianne

Feinstein.” He also states that prison officials are corrupt and have removed documents from his

habeas petition challenging the denial of parole. Plaintiff concludes:

. . . When will the court recognize corrections officials are tyrants

acting on there [sic] own accord and not on the rule of law of the U.S.

Constitution. Only when it seems to suit them do they follow the law. For

these reasons the defendants are not entitled to summary judgment. . . .

Plaintiff’s allegations of misconduct do not relate to the facts underlying his due process claim

against the defendants in this case. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s request for leave to

conduct additional discovery is denied. 

DATED: September 27, 2007

______________________________________

CRAIG M. KELLISON

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:06-cv-00233-LKK -CMK Document 64 Filed 09/28/07 Page 2 of 2