Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_02-cv-00864/USCOURTS-caed-2_02-cv-00864-3/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ABE WILLIAMS,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-02-0864 MCE GGH P

vs.

ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

Plaintiff has several requests for extension of time pending before this court. 

Plaintiff filed a motion to compel discovery on September 27, 2005 to which defendants filed an

opposition on October 24, 2005. Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment on October

14, 2005. 

On October 31, 2005, plaintiff sought an extension of time to file an opposition to

defendants’ October 14, 2005 motion for summary judgment. Also on October 31, 2005,

plaintiff asked the court to grant him an extension of time to complete discovery before the court

rules on defendants’ motion for summary judgment. On November 4, 2005, plaintiff requested

an extension of time to file and serve a reply to defendants’ opposition to plaintiff’s motion to

compel discovery. 

\\\\\

Case 2:02-cv-00864-MCE -GGH Document 73 Filed 11/16/05 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

1

 Although plaintiff does not specifically cite the applicable rule, plaintiff appears to be

attempting to invoke the provisions of Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(f).

Until the court can adjudicate plaintiff’s motion to compel discovery, the

undersigned will be unable to determine whether the motion for summary judgment should be

continued, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(f),1 on the ground that plaintiff has not yet been

provided with particular discovery responses or documents upon which his opposition could be

based. Therefore, in his opposition to the motion for summary judgment, plaintiff must at the

least set forth in an affidavit whether he is unable to present facts/evidence to oppose the

dispositive motion because he has been unable to receive full discovery responses to date,

indicating specifically what information he believes he needs in order to do so. To the extent that

plaintiff is able to provide a substantive opposition, he must do so, because if the court

determines that the discovery responses at issue would not be material or relevant to plaintiff’s

opposition, the motion for summary judgment will not be continued.

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s October 31, 2005 request for an extension of time to file an

opposition to defendants’ October 14, 2005 motion for summary judgment is granted, and

plaintiff has thirty days from the filed date of this order to file and serve his opposition; any reply

by defendants is due seven days thereafter;

2. Plaintiff’s October 31, 2005 request for an extension of time to complete 

discovery prior to this court’s ruling on the motion for summary judgment is denied without

prejudice; the court will not reach the dispositive motion until adjudication of plaintiff’s motion

to compel; and

\\\\\

\\\\\

\\\\\

\\\\\

\\\\\

Case 2:02-cv-00864-MCE -GGH Document 73 Filed 11/16/05 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

3. Plaintiff’s November 4, 2005 request for an extension of time to file and serve

a reply to defendants’ October 24, 2005 opposition to plaintiff’s September 27, 2005 motion to

compel discovery is granted, and plaintiff has until November 30, 2005, as requested, to file a

reply.

DATED: 11/16/05

/s/ Gregory G. Hollows

GREGORY G. HOLLOWS

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

GGH:009

will0864.36+

 

Case 2:02-cv-00864-MCE -GGH Document 73 Filed 11/16/05 Page 3 of 3