Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_08-cv-01889/USCOURTS-cand-4_08-cv-01889-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ANTHONY ARNOLD, 

Plaintiff,

v.

M. S. EVANS, et al.,

Defendants.

______________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C 08-1889 CW (PR)

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S

MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME

TO FILE OPPOSITION; DENYING

DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO STAY

DISCOVERY; AND SETTING

BRIEFING SCHEDULE 

(Docket nos. 31, 32)

INTRODUCTION

Plaintiff Anthony Arnold, a state prisoner currently

incarcerated at Salinas Valley State Prison (SVSP), filed a pro se

prisoner complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 

Plaintiff filed an amended complaint on December 17, 2008. In

an Order of Service dated January 25, 2010, the Court found that

Plaintiff had adequately alleged a cognizable due process claim

against Warden M. S. Evans, Associate Warden G. Neotti, Chief

Deputy Warden A. Hedgpeth and Captain D. M. Mantel.

On June 28, 2010, Defendants filed their motion for summary

judgment on the grounds that: (1) Plaintiff does not have a liberty

interest sufficient to trigger due process protection; (2) if he is

entitled to due process protection, that protection has been given;

and (3) they are entitled to qualified immunity.

On July 15, 2010, Plaintiff filed a request under Federal Rule

of Civil Procedure 56(f) for an extension of time to oppose summary

judgment. He also filed a declaration in support of his Rule 56(f)

motion.

Case 4:08-cv-01889-CW Document 34 Filed 08/13/10 Page 1 of 6
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

On July 19, 2010, Defendants filed a motion to stay discovery

pending the Court's ruling on their motion for summary judgment of

qualified immunity. 

On July 22, 2010, Defendants' counsel filed a declaration

opposing Plaintiff's Rule 56(f) motion.

DISCUSSION 

 Defendants' motion for summary judgment is not solely based on

the issue of qualified immunity. Only if qualified immunity were

the sole basis for Defendants' motion for summary judgment would

the Court consider staying discovery pending resolution of the

dispositive motion. Staying discovery would delay resolution of

the case if the motion for summary judgment is denied. Therefore,

Defendants' request to stay discovery pending resolution of the

question of qualified immunity is DENIED.

Also before the Court is Plaintiff's Rule 56(f) motion. Rule

56(f) provides a device for litigants to avoid summary judgment

when the non-movant needs to discover affirmative evidence

necessary to oppose the motion. See Garrett v. San Francisco, 818

F.2d 1515, 1518 (9th Cir. 1987). Rule 56(f) provides that a court

may deny a summary judgment motion to permit discovery if it

appears that a party cannot present facts essential to opposing the

motion. The Rule requires an affidavit which sets forth the

information sought and how it would preclude summary judgment by

creating a genuine issue of material fact. See Hall v. Hawaii, 791

F.2d 759, 761 (9th Cir. 1986).

Plaintiff's Rule 56(f) motion does not make clear what

discovery he is seeking. In his declaration, Plaintiff seeks "an

incident report dated February 13, 1999." (Pl. Decl. at 1.) 

Case 4:08-cv-01889-CW Document 34 Filed 08/13/10 Page 2 of 6
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

However, in his Rule 56(f) motion, he cites to Exhibits (1) through

(4). Exhibit (1) is a letter to the "A Facility Building 1

Counselor" seeking a committee action summary dated July 13, 2006;

confidential information disclosure form (1030) dated July 13,

2006; and a "confidential report that was used to label [him] as a

2-5 member (without revealing the informant [sic] identity)." 

(Rule 56(f) Mot., Ex. 1, at 1.) It does not appear that Plaintiff

sent this request to Defendants or their counsel. (See id.) 

Exhibit (2) is a request written on an interview request form to

"Custody, attn: Rhea," seeking an incident report from 2000 in Mule

Creek. (Rule 56(f) Mot., Ex. 2, at 1.) This request was sent to

Defendants' counsel. (Id. at 2.) Exhibit (3) is a request for the

previously mentioned July 13, 2006 documents, sent to Defendants. 

(Rule 56(f) Mot., Ex. 3, at 1-2.) Exhibit (4) appears to be a

request for Defendants to admit the genuineness of the two July 13,

2006 documents. (Rule 56(f) Mot., Ex. 4, at 1-3.) It is therefore

not clear if Plaintiff is seeking a 1999 incident report, a 2000

incident report, 2006 disclosure forms and action summaries, a

confidential report, or another report entirely.

Defendants' counsel's declaration does not clarify Plaintiff's

request. Counsel has interpreted Plaintiff's motion as seeking the

document mentioned in Exhibit (2), the 2000 Mule Creek incident

report. (Kwong Decl. at 2.) Counsel reports that he provided this

document to Plaintiff on July 21, 2010 and believes there are no

other outstanding discovery requests. (Id.) It is therefore not

clear to the Court if Plaintiff's discovery requests have been met

and if he still desires an extension of time to complete his

Case 4:08-cv-01889-CW Document 34 Filed 08/13/10 Page 3 of 6
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

opposition to Defendants' motion for summary judgment.

Plaintiff has failed to satisfy other requirements of Rule

56(f). As the Ninth Circuit stated in Continental Maritime v.

Pacific Coast Metal Trades, 817 F.2d 1391, 1395 (9th Cir. 1987),

under Rule 56(f) "the party seeking a continuance bears the burden

to show what specific facts it hopes to discover that will raise an

issue of material fact." Id. Plaintiff has not met this burden. 

Plaintiff fails to demonstrate how "additional discovery would have

revealed specific facts precluding summary judgment." See Tatum v.

City and County of S.F., 441 F.3d 1090, 1101 (9th Cir. 2006). The

requested documents are sought without explanation of what

specific, material facts these documents will likely disclose;

Plaintiff only states in conclusory fashion that they will help him

"show the existence of genuine issues of material facts." (Pl.

Decl. at 1.) Such a conclusory statement is not sufficient under

Rule 56(f); Plaintiff has not met his burden under the Rule.

Nevertheless, Plaintiff is only asking for a sixty-day

extension of time and this is his first request. Therefore, the

Court grants Plaintiff a sixty-day extension of time in which to

file his opposition to summary judgment. 

 CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the Court orders as follows:

1. Defendants' motion to stay discovery (docket no. 32) is

DENIED. Defendants' request for a thirty-day extension of time to

respond to any outstanding discovery requests is GRANTED in part

and DENIED in part. The Court DENIES Defendants' request for a

thirty-day extension but finds that a brief extension is warranted. 

Case 4:08-cv-01889-CW Document 34 Filed 08/13/10 Page 4 of 6
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

5

Defendants must respond to Plaintiff's discovery requests no later

than fifteen (15) days from the date of this Order.

2. Plaintiff's motion for an extension of time to file an

opposition to Defendants' motion for summary judgment (docket no.

31) is GRANTED. Plaintiff is directed to file his opposition no

later than seventy-five (75) days from the date of this Order. If

Defendants wish to file a reply brief, they shall do so no later

than fifteen (15) days after the date Plaintiff's opposition is

filed. 

3. This Order terminates Docket nos. 31 and 32. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: 8/13/2010 

CLAUDIA WILKEN

United States District Judge

Case 4:08-cv-01889-CW Document 34 Filed 08/13/10 Page 5 of 6
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ANTHONY ARNOLD,

Plaintiff,

 v.

M.S. EVANS, WARDEN, ET AL. et al,

Defendant. /

Case Number: CV08-01889 CW 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I, the undersigned, hereby certify that I am an employee in the Office of the Clerk, U.S. District

Court, Northern District of California.

That on August 13, 2010, I SERVED a true and correct copy(ies) of the attached, by placing said

copy(ies) in a postage paid envelope addressed to the person(s) hereinafter listed, by depositing said

envelope in the U.S. Mail, or by placing said copy(ies) into an inter-office delivery receptacle

located in the Clerk's office.

Anthony Arnold H-22763

Salinas Valley State Prison

P.O. Box 1050

Soledad, CA 93960

Dated: August 13, 2010

Richard W. Wieking, Clerk

By: Nikki Riley, Deputy Clerk

Case 4:08-cv-01889-CW Document 34 Filed 08/13/10 Page 6 of 6