Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-01092/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-01092-16/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

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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Plaintiff Billy Coy Cochran is appearing pro se in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 

§ 1983. 

Currently before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion to defer ruling on Defendant Aguirre’s 

exhaustion-related motion for summary judgment, filed October 31, 2016. 

On November 1, 2016, the Court directed Defendant to file a response to Plaintiff’s request for 

additional discovery to oppose the pending motion for summary judgment. (ECF No. 69.) Defendant 

filed a response on December 1, 2016. (ECF No. 70.) Plaintiff did not file a reply, therefore the 

motion is deemed submitted for review without oral argument. Local Rule 230(l). 

In his motion, Plaintiff contends that he needs additional documentation to oppose Defendant’s 

exhaustion-related motion for summary judgment because he has been denied access to his legal 

materials after his transfer to Valley State Prison (VSP) and contends items have been removed from 

his central file. (ECF No. 67.) 

Rule 56(d) provides that “[i]f a nonmovant shows by affidavit or declaration that, for specified 

reasons, it cannot present facts essential to justify its opposition, the court may: (1) defer considering 

the motion or deny it; (2) allow time to obtain affidavits or declarations or to take discovery; or (3) 

BILLY COY COCHRAN,

 Plaintiff,

v.

E. AGUIRRE, 

Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 1:15-cv-01092-AWI-SAB (PC)

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO 

DEFER RULING ON DEFENDANT’S 

EXHAUSTION-RELATED MOTION FOR 

SUMMARY JUDGMENT, GRANTING 

PLAINTIFF THIRTY DAYS TO FILE A 

SUPPLEMENTAL OPPOSITION

[ECF Nos. 67, 70]

Case 1:15-cv-01092-AWI-SAB Document 71 Filed 12/14/16 Page 1 of 3
2

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

issue any other appropriate order.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(d). In seeking relief under Rule 56(d), Plaintiff

bears the burden of specifically identifying relevant information, where there is some basis for 

believing that the information actually exists, and demonstrating that the evidence sought actually 

exists and that it would prevent summary judgment. Blough v. Holland Realty, Inc., 574 F.3d 1084, 

1091 n.5 (9th Cir. 2009) (quotation marks and citation omitted); Getz v. Boeing Co., 654 F.3d 852, 

867-868 (9th Cir. 2011); Tatum v. City and County of San Francisco, 441 F.3d 1090, 1100-1101 (9th 

Cir. 2006). 

As an initial matter, Defendant submits that Plaintiff responded to Defendant’s discovery 

requests where Defendant sought “all administrative appeals [Plaintiff] contend[s] [Plaintiff] 

submitted concerning [his] allegations in the Complaint.” (Def.’s Mot. for Summ. J., Interrog. No. 15, 

Sept. 26, 2016, ECF No. 52-16, at p.8.) Defendant also requested that Plaintiff “[p]roduce all 

DOCUMENTS identified in response to interrogatory number 15.” (Id. at p. 14.) All of the 

documentation is attached to Defendant’s motion for summary judgment. (ECF No. 52.) Defendant 

has agreed to serve Plaintiff an additional copy of all items produced in response to discovery, 

including all exhibits attached to the pending motion for summary judgment. (ECF No. 70, Attach. 

A.) 

Defendant further submits that Plaintiff arrived at VSP on September 21, 2016, with two boxes 

of property. (ECF No. 70-4, Pacifico Decl., ¶ 3.) VSP received two additional boxes of Plaintiff’s 

property on October 10, 2016. (Id. at ¶ 4.) Because the property boxes contain both personal and 

legal property, it is uncertain how much of the property related to Plaintiff’s legal claims. (Id. at ¶ 5.) 

Plaintiff is permitted to possess up to six cubic feet of property and one cubic foot of personal 

property. (Id. at ¶ 6.) Any remaining property is stored in receiving and release and Plaintiff may 

submit requests to obtain those items. (Id. at ¶ 7.) Plaintiff requested and received documents from 

his central file on October 28, 2016. (Id. at ¶ 8.) Indeed, the CDC-128 D form, dated October 28, 

2016, states, “[o]n 10/28/16, at approximately 1020 hours I received 226 copies of all of my 

grievances filed from 6/1/13 to present Appeal LOG#FSP-12-00129, 24 copies of all of my Rules 

Violation Reports from Folsom State Prison, 1 copy of Notice Of Classification Hearing [dated] 

10/26/15, 1 copy of CDC 7219 [dated] 4/15/16, and 72 copies of Administrative Segregation Unit 

Case 1:15-cv-01092-AWI-SAB Document 71 Filed 12/14/16 Page 2 of 3
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

Placement Notices from 6.1.13 to present from my assigned counselor. This came to a grand total of 

325 copies.” (ECF No. 70-4, Attach. B.) In addition, Plaintiff reviewed his central file on November 

18, 2016. (Id. at ¶ 9.) The CDC-128 D form, dated November 18, 2016, states, “[o]n 11/18/16, at 

approximately 1000 hours I reviewed my Central File in preparation for a pending litigations case. I 

received 70 copies out of my central file from my assigned counselor.” (ECF No. 70-4, Attach. C.) 

As Plaintiff acknowledges, a litigation hold was placed on Plaintiff’s central file on February 10, 2016. 

(ECF No. 68, at p. 5.) In his motion, Plaintiff contends that many of his appeals were screened out by 

the appeals coordinator; however, screened out appeals are not maintained in Plaintiff’s central file. 

(Pacifico Decl., ¶ 10.) Rather, such appeals would have been returned to Plaintiff along with a 

screening letter. (Id. at ¶ 11.) 

Plaintiff’s general argument that he has been denied the right to obtain evidence to support his 

opposition is precisely the type of general argument which is not sufficient to obtain relief under Rule 

56(d). Moreover, because Defendant has provided Plaintiff with an additional copy of his discovery 

responses that contain all appeals identified as relevant by Plaintiff, and Plaintiff has had access to his 

central file, Plaintiff’s motion to defer ruling on Defendant’s exhaustion-related motion for summary 

judgment in order to obtain further discovery is DENIED. In the interest of justice, the Court will 

grant Plaintiff thirty (30) days from the date of service of this order to file a supplemental opposition, 

and Defendant may file a reply within fourteen (14) days after the filing of any supplemental 

opposition. The motion will be deemed submitted for review after any supplemental filings, and no 

extensions of time will be granted, absent a showing of extraordinary circumstances.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 14, 2016 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:15-cv-01092-AWI-SAB Document 71 Filed 12/14/16 Page 3 of 3