Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_02-cv-03374/USCOURTS-cand-4_02-cv-03374-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 555
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Prison Condition
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

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

NOT FOR CITATION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RICHARD J. VIEIRA, 

Plaintiff,

 vs.

J.S. WOODFORD, Warden; LARRY

MILES, LARRY MAASSEN, and JOHN

DOES, 

Defendants. /

No. C 02-3374 PJH (PR)

ORDER GRANTING

DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR

SUMMARY JUDGMENT

This is a civil rights case filed pro se by a state prisoner. Plaintiff contends his equal

protection rights were violated when he was not paid for a year for working as a porter on

his exercise yard, when the porters on other yards were paid. The amount at issue is less

than $240.00. 

In the initial review order the court dismissed the claims against defendant Woodford

and the official capacity claims against the other defendants. Service was ordered on

defendants “Mills” and Maassen. The marshal’s return of service showed that Maassen

has retired from state service and moved out of state. The return for defendant “Mills” said

that no such person works or has worked in the accounting office at San Quentin. Plaintiff

filed an amended complaint in which he stated that the correct name for the defendant who

he named as “Mills” was “Miles.” The court ordered that service be attempted on Larry

Miles. Service was returned with a notation that no such person works or has worked at

San Quentin. The court, noting that it is plaintiff’s responsibility to provide directions for

service, issued an order for plaintiff to show cause why the case should not be dismissed

for failure to obtain service. In response, plaintiff moved for leave to file a supplemental

Case 4:02-cv-03374-PJH Document 43 Filed 03/20/06 Page 1 of 3
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

complaint in which he claimed that the proper defendant was “A. Miles.” The court allowed

the supplemental complaint and ordered service on A. Miles. The summons was returned

executed. Miles has filed a motion for summary judgment. Plaintiff has opposed it and

filed a motion to compel discovery and a request to delay ruling until discovery is complete.

DISCUSSION

Summary judgment is proper where the pleadings, discovery and affidavits show

that there is "no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled

to judgment as a matter of law." Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c). Material facts are those which may

affect the outcome of the case. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986). 

A dispute as to a material fact is genuine if there is sufficient evidence for a reasonable jury

to return a verdict for the nonmoving party. Id.

The moving party for summary judgment bears the initial burden of identifying those

portions of the pleadings, discovery and affidavits which demonstrate the absence of a

genuine issue of material fact. Celotex Corp. v. Cattrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986); Nissan

Fire & Marine Ins. Co. v. Fritz Cos., 210 F.3d 1099, 1102 (9th Cir. 2000). When the moving

party has met this burden of production, the nonmoving party must go beyond the

pleadings and, by its own affidavits or discovery, set forth specific facts showing that there

is a genuine issue for trial. If the nonmoving party fails to produce enough evidence to

show a genuine issue of material fact, the moving party wins. Id.

Miles has provided an affidavit and records that show he did not work for the

Department of Corrections at the time plaintiff was not being paid for being a yard porter. 

He thus could not be liable. Nothing in plaintiff’s response to the motion shows that there is

a genuine issue of material fact on this point.

Plaintiff has also filed a combined motion to compel discovery and to stay ruling on

the motion for summary judgment. 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(f) provides that if a party opposing summary

judgment demonstrates a need for further discovery in order to obtain facts essential to

Case 4:02-cv-03374-PJH Document 43 Filed 03/20/06 Page 2 of 3
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

justify the party's opposition, the trial court may deny the motion for summary judgment or

continue the hearing to allow for such discovery. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(f); Margolis v.

Ryan, 140 F.3d 850, 853 (9th Cir. 1998). In making a Rule 56(f) motion, a party opposing

summary judgment must make clear "what information is sought and how it would preclude

summary judgment." Id. at 853-54. 

The discovery plaintiff seeks is not directed to whether Miles worked for the

Department of Corrections in 2001. Plaintiff has failed to show that he is entitled to delay of

the ruling to allow more discovery. The request for a stay of the ruling will be denied and

the motion for summary judgment will be granted. 

 Plaintiff’s discovery requests that are the subject of his motion to compel all relate

to finding an address at which defendant Maassen could be served and the names of other

possible defendants. As noted above, the summons directed to Maassen was returned

with a notation that he has retired and moved out of the state. He thus is probably beyond

this court’s jurisdiction for service purposes. In any event, the motion to compel will be

denied as moot because with the grant of summary judgment there is no longer any

defendant to whom an order could be directed. 

CONCLUSION

Defendant Miles’ motion for summary judgment (document number 38) is

GRANTED. Plaintiff’s motions to stay ruling (documents number 40 and 41) and his

motion to compel (document number 40) are DENIED. Plaintiff’s claims against Maasen

are DISMISSED without prejudice for failure to obtain service. See Fed. R.Civ.P. 4(m). 

The clerk shall close this case. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 20, 2006.

 PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON

G:\PRO-SE\PJH\CR.02\VIEIRA374.SJ United States District Judge 

Case 4:02-cv-03374-PJH Document 43 Filed 03/20/06 Page 3 of 3