Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_10-cv-01154/USCOURTS-caed-2_10-cv-01154-27/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

ROBERTO HERRERA,

Plaintiff,

v.

P. STATTI, et al.,

Defendants.

No. 2:10-cv-1154 MCE KJN P (TEMP)

ORDER

Plaintiff is a state prisoner, proceeding pro se, with a civil rights action. Pending before 

the court are several of plaintiff’s requests and motions to re-open discovery and postpone or stay 

defendant Medina’s motion for summary judgment. 

For the reasons discussed herein, the court denies plaintiff’s requests. In addition, the 

court will order plaintiff to file his opposition to defendant’s motion for summary judgment 

within thirty days. Plaintiff’s failure to file an opposition will be deemed a statement of nonopposition and will result in a recommendation for dismissal of this action. 

BACKGROUND

Plaintiff is proceeding on an amended complaint against defendant Medina based upon 

the defendant’s alleged failure to provide plaintiff with adequate medical care. Specifically, 

plaintiff alleges that while he was incarcerated at High Desert State Prison (“HDSP”), 

correctional officers engaged in excessive use of force against him, and defendant Medina failed 

Case 2:10-cv-01154-MCE-DB Document 195 Filed 12/10/15 Page 1 of 5
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

to provide him with adequate medical care after that use of force incident. According to plaintiff, 

defendant Medina falsely reported that plaintiff refused medical care. Plaintiff further alleges that 

he was transferred to California State Prison, Corcoran, but upon his return to HDSP defendant 

Medina took him off of his prescribed pain medication for no reason. (Am. Compl. Attach. at 2.) 

PLAINTIFF’S REQUESTS AND MOTIONS FOR COURT ORDERS

On June 29, 2015, defendant Medina filed a motion for summary judgment. Specifically, 

defendant Medina contends that plaintiff failed to exhaust his medical care claims prior to filing 

suit as required and that there is no evidence that defendant Medina was deliberately indifferent to 

plaintiff’s medical needs. On July 27, 2015, plaintiff filed what appeared to be an opposition to 

defendant’s motion, and on July 31, 2015, defendant Medina filed a reply. Since defendant 

Medina filed his reply, plaintiff has filed a multitude of documents claiming that he never filed an 

opposition to defendant Medina’s motion. Rather, plaintiff contends that he has only filed 

requests for court orders to re-open discovery so that he could properly oppose defendant’s 

motion for summary judgment. As best as this court can tell, plaintiff seeks to re-open discovery 

to allow him to obtain copies of various inmate appeals he claims he submitted to prison officials 

in order to demonstrate that he has exhausted his deliberate indifference claims against defendant 

Medina. Plaintiff requests that the court construe his recent requests and motions as being 

brought pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(d). 

To obtain relief under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(d), the moving party must 

show:

(1) that they have set forth in affidavit form the specific facts that 

they hope to elicit from further discovery, (2) that the facts sought 

exist, and (3) that these sought-after facts are “essential” to resist 

the summary judgment motion. 

State of Cal. v. Campbell, 138 F.3d 772, 779 (9th Cir. 1998). Failure to comply with the rule’s 

requirements “is a proper ground for denying discovery and proceeding to summary judgment.” 

Id. See also Volk v. D.A. Davidson & Co., 816 F.2d 1406, 1416 (9th Cir. 1987) (“The burden is 

on the party seeking to conduct additional discovery to put forth sufficient facts to show that the 

evidence sought exists.”); Hancock v. Montgomery Ward Long Term Disability Trust, 787 F.2d 

Case 2:10-cv-01154-MCE-DB Document 195 Filed 12/10/15 Page 2 of 5
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

1302, 1306 n. 1 (9th Cir.1986) (party opposing summary judgment “has the burden under Rule 

56[d] to show what facts [he] hopes to discover to raise an issue of material fact.”). “The district 

court does not abuse its discretion by denying further discovery if the movant has failed diligently 

to pursue discovery in the past.” Conkle v. Jeong, 73 F.3d 909, 914 (9th Cir. 1995). See also

Nidds v. Schindler Elevator Corp., 113 F.3d 912, 921 (9th Cir. 1997) (a party’s failure to 

diligently pursue discovery in the past is sufficient reason for the court to deny further discovery). 

In this case, plaintiff has not met his burden of demonstrating that he is entitled to relief 

under Rule 56(d). Specifically, as this court previously found when it denied plaintiff’s prior two 

motions for relief pursuant to Rule 56(d), plaintiff has not demonstrated that he has diligently 

pursued discovery. This court issued the discovery and scheduling order in this case back on 

October 3, 2013. In that order, the court ordered the parties to complete discovery by January 24, 

2014. On January 8, 2014, the court granted the parties an additional thirty days to conduct 

discovery up to and including February 24, 2014. On April 2, 2014, the court granted defendant 

Medina an additional extension of time to conduct plaintiff’s deposition, and on May 6, 2014, the 

court granted plaintiff additional time to serve on defense counsel further responses to 

defendant’s discovery requests as directed by a prior court order granting defendant’s motion to 

compel. In this regard, this court has generously allowed both parties to conduct discovery well 

past the original deadline. Insofar as plaintiff now complains he had difficulty obtaining 

discovery from the defendant during the discovery period, or faced challenges as a result of 

transfers between prisons, he needed to file a motion to compel during the five-month period 

allotted for discovery in this case and/or a motion for additional time to conduct discovery. 

Plaintiff did not do so. Instead, as this court previously observed, plaintiff only tried to file two 

motions to compel six months after the discovery deadline had passed. Plaintiff, having 

demonstrated a lack of diligence on his part, is not now entitled to re-open discovery at this very 

late date. 

Finally, by this order, the court directs plaintiff to file an opposition to defendant’s motion 

for summary judgment within thirty days. Plaintiff’s failure to file an opposition to defendant’s 

motion for summary judgment will be deemed a statement of non-opposition to the motion and 

Case 2:10-cv-01154-MCE-DB Document 195 Filed 12/10/15 Page 3 of 5
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

will result in a recommendation for dismissal of this action. The undersigned notes that in his

recent filings, plaintiff informs the court that he has been diagnosed with Valley Fever. Although 

this court acknowledges the seriousness of plaintiff’s medical condition, the court does not find 

credible plaintiff’s contention that he needs more time to file an opposition to defendant’s motion 

for summary judgment because of it. As this court previously noted, plaintiff has filed an 

inordinate number of motions in this case, many of which are repetitive. The court advised 

plaintiff that it would impose restrictions on his filings if he did not exercise appropriate restraint 

in the future. Since the court filed that order, plaintiff has filed more improper and superfluous 

motions and has once more delayed consideration of defendant’s motion for summary judgment. 

This court emphasizes that it will not tolerate further delay by plaintiff or allow him to impede the 

progress of this case. Plaintiff has one final opportunity to file an opposition to defendant’s 

motion for summary judgment. 

OTHER MATTERS

Defendant Medina has moved to strike plaintiff’s recent requests and motions pursuant to 

Rule 12(f). Rule 12(f) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that “[t]he court may 

strike from a pleading an insufficient defense or any redundant, immaterial, impertinent, or 

scandalous matter.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(f). Under Rule 7 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 

plaintiff’s recent filings do not constitute pleadings. Fed. R. Civ. P. 7(a). See also SidneyVinstein v. A.H. Robins Co., 597 F.2d 880 (9th Cir. 1983) (“Under the express language of the 

rule, only pleadings are subject to motions to strike.”). Accordingly, the court will deny 

defendant’s motion to strike.1

CONCLUSION

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s requests and motions for relief pursuant to Rule 56(d) (Doc. Nos. 174, 181, 

183, 185-87 & 189-91) are denied;

 

1

 Defense counsel’s contentions in the pending motion to strike are well taken and the court has 

made clear in this order that plaintiff has one final opportunity to file an opposition to defendant 

Medina’s motion for summary judgment. 

Case 2:10-cv-01154-MCE-DB Document 195 Filed 12/10/15 Page 4 of 5
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

2. Within thirty days of the date of service of this order, plaintiff shall file an opposition 

to defendant Medina’s motion for summary judgment. No further extensions of time will be 

granted for this purpose. Plaintiff’s failure to file an opposition to defendant’s motion for 

summary judgment will be deemed a statement of non-opposition to the motion and will result in 

a recommendation for dismissal of this action; and

3. Defendant’s motion to strike (Doc. No. 188) is denied.

Dated: December 10, 2015

herr1154.56d(2)

Case 2:10-cv-01154-MCE-DB Document 195 Filed 12/10/15 Page 5 of 5