Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_23-cv-01214/USCOURTS-caed-1_23-cv-01214-24/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

THOMAS K. MILLS,

Plaintiff,

v.

ZACHERY JONES, et al.

Defendants.

No. 1:23-cv-01214-JLT-SAB (PC)

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION 

RECOMMENDING PLAINTIFF’S FOURTH 

MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT BE 

DENIED

(ECF No. 68)

Plaintiff is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this action filed pursuant to 42 

U.S.C. § 1983. 

Currently before the Court is Plaintiff’s fourth motion for summary judgment, filed June 

6, 2024. (ECF No. 68.) For the same reasons as stated in the Court’s April 23, 2024, Findings 

and Recommendations, Plaintiff’s fourth motion for summary judgment must be denied.

I.

DISCUSSION

Rule 56(d) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides a procedure by which a party 

may avoid summary judgment when such party has not had sufficient opportunity to discover 

affirmative evidence necessary to oppose the motion. See Garrett v. San Francisco, 818 F.2d 

1515, 1518 (9th Cir. 1987). In particular, Rule 56(d) provides that a court may deny a summary 

Case 1:23-cv-01214-JLT-SAB Document 69 Filed 06/10/24 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

judgment motion and permit the opposing party to conduct discovery where it appears that the 

opposing party, in the absence of such discovery, is unable to present facts essential to opposing 

the motion. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(d). A pending discovery motion is sufficient to raise a question as 

to whether the party opposing summary judgment should be permitted additional discovery, even 

if no request under Rule 56(d) has been made. See Garrett, 818 F.2d at 1518. The Ninth Circuit 

has made clear that in cases involving pro se prisoners, summary judgment is not favored when 

discovery requests for relevant evidence are pending. In particular, the Ninth Circuit has noted:

Under Rule 56(f) [(the predecessor to current Rule 56(d))], the court may postpone ruling 

on a summary judgment motion where the nonmoving party needs “additional discovery to 

explore ‘facts essential to justify the party's opposition.’ ” Crawford-El v. Britton, 523 U.S. 574, 

599 n.20 (1998) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 56(f)). Though the conduct of discovery is generally 

left to a district court's discretion, summary judgment is disfavored where relevant evidence 

remains to be discovered, particularly in cases involving confined pro se plaintiffs. Klingele v. 

Eikenberry, 849 F.2d 409, 412 (9th Cir. 1988); Harris v. Pate, 440 F.2d 315, 318 (7th Cir. 1971) 

(Stevens, J.) (observing that the combined disabilities of self-representation and confinement 

hinder a plaintiff's ability to gather evidence). Thus summary judgment in the face of requests for 

additional discovery is appropriate only where such discovery would be “fruitless” with respect to 

the proof of a viable claim. Klingele, 849 F.2d at 412; Jones v. Blanas, 393 F.3d 918, 930 (9th 

Cir. 2004) (parallel citations omitted and brackets added). Plaintiff’s motion for summary 

judgment is premature as Defendants have not had sufficient opportunity to conduct discovery as 

it was just opened on April 10, 2024. (ECF No. 51.) 

In addition, Plaintiff did not comply with Local Rule 260(a) which requires the party 

moving for summary judgment to provide a “Statement of Undisputed Facts” that cites to the 

evidentiary basis for each undisputed fact. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(c) similarly 

mandates that all undisputed facts be based on “materials in the record” such as affidavits or 

depositions. Although Plaintiff has attached his own declaration to the motion for summary 

judgment, he has not included a separate statement of undisputed facts as required by Local Rule 

260(a). As a result, Plaintiff’s motion is procedurally deficient under Fed. R. Civ. P. 56 and 

Case 1:23-cv-01214-JLT-SAB Document 69 Filed 06/10/24 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

Local Rule 260(a). Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment must be denied.

II.

RECOMMENDATION

Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY RECOMMENDED that Plaintiff’s fourth motion 

for summary judgment (ECF No. 68) is DENIED, without prejudice.

This Findings and Recommendation will be submitted to the United States District Judge 

assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen (14) 

days after being served with this Findings and Recommendation, the parties may file written 

objections with the Court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s 

Findings and Recommendation.” The parties are advised that failure to file objections within the 

specified time may result in the waiver of rights on appeal. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 

838-39 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 10, 2024 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:23-cv-01214-JLT-SAB Document 69 Filed 06/10/24 Page 3 of 3