Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-06624/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-06624-24/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

SY LEE CASTLE,

Plaintiff,

v.

A. K. SCRIBNER,

Defendant.

 /

CASE NO. 1:04-cv-06624-SMS PC

ORDER GRANTING PARTIES’ MOTIONS

FOR CONSIDERATION OF THEIR

SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTIONS

(Docs. 132 and 137)

ORDER VACATING SECOND SCHEDULING

ORDER

(Doc. 134)

Plaintiff Sy Lee Castle (“plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights

action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action is proceeding on plaintiff’s second amended

complaint, filed October 21, 2005, against defendant Scribner (“defendant”) for acting with

deliberate indifference to plaintiff’s medical needs, in violation of the Eighth Amendment. The

deadline for filing pretrial dispositive motions was April 30, 2007. Neither party filed a timely

motion and on May 11, 2007, a scheduling order setting this matter for trial was issued. 

On May 9, 2007, plaintiff filed a motion for summary judgment, along with a motion

requesting that his motion be considered. On May 30, 2007, defendant filed a statement of nonopposition, a request for leave to file a cross-motion for summary judgment, and a cross-motion for

summary judgment. On June 11, 2007, plaintiff filed an objection to defendant’s request for leave

to have defendant’s cross-motion for summary judgment considered. 

///

Case 1:04-cv-06624-SMS Document 145 Filed 06/14/07 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

In his motion seeking to have his motion for summary judgment considered, plaintiff states

that he received the court’s order of April 16, 2007, informing him of the April 30 motion deadline

on April 18, 2007. Plaintiff states that black inmates, including plaintiff, were placed on modified

program on April 27, 2007, and he was unable makes copies of his motion for summary judgment

to send to the court and defense counsel by the deadline. In his objection to defendant’s motion for

leave to have defendant’s cross-motion for summary judgment considered, plaintiff argues that

defendant did not demonstrate due diligence.

In this instance, plaintiff did not demonstrate due diligence either. Plaintiff had ample notice

that the dispositive motion deadline was April 30, 2007, and to the extent plaintiff is suggesting he

became aware of this only after receiving the court’s order of April 18, 2007, plaintiff’s argument

is rejected. The parties have had fifteen months within which to draft and file pretrial dispositive

motions, and the deadline was extended to April 30, 2007, pursuant to an order filed on March 30,

2007. Despite plaintiff’s contention otherwise, the inability to make last minute photocopies due to

a modified program effective April 27, 2007, demonstrates neither due diligence nor “extraordinary

circumstances.” (Doc. 142, 3:10-12.) 

Assuming plaintiff’s motion is considered, defendant has the right at a minimum to oppose

plaintiff’s motion, and consideration of plaintiff’s motion and the opposition will require the court

to consider the same facts and evidence it would were it also to consider defendant’s cross-motion.

Plaintiff may not have his motion heard but seek to deprive defendant of the opportunity to have his

cross-motion heard. Either both motions will be heard or neither will be heard. Summary judgment

motions are not disfavored procedural shortcuts, Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 327, 106

S.Ct. 2548, 2555 (1986), and it is the decision of the court that in light of the fact that both parties

are requesting consideration of their motions for summary judgment and in the absence of any

showing of prejudice to either party, both motions shall be considered. Accordingly, it is HEREBY

ORDERED that:

1. The parties’ motions for consideration of their motions for summary judgment are

GRANTED; and

///

Case 1:04-cv-06624-SMS Document 145 Filed 06/14/07 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

2. The Second Scheduling Order, filed on May 10, 2007, is VACATED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 14, 2007 /s/ Sandra M. Snyder 

icido3 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:04-cv-06624-SMS Document 145 Filed 06/14/07 Page 3 of 3