Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_08-cv-00095/USCOURTS-caed-1_08-cv-00095-17/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

KELVIN X. SINGLETON, 

Plaintiff,

v.

A. HEDGEPATH, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

1:08-cv-00095-AWI-GSA-PC

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION

TO DENY PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR PARTIAL

SUMMARY JUDGMENT AS PREMATURE

(Doc. 58.)

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR

PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT AS

PREMATURE, WITHOUT PREJUDICE

(Doc. 52.) 

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO

REQUIRE DEFENDANTS TO RESPOND TO

MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY

JUDGMENT AS MOOT

(Doc. 62.) 

I. BACKGROUND

Plaintiff Kelvin X. Singleton (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in

forma pauperis in this civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff filed the

Complaint commencing this action on January 18, 2008. (Doc. 1.) This action proceeds on the

Second Amended Complaint filed on February 12, 2009, against defendants CMO A. Youssef,

CMO S. Lopez, Dr. J. Akanno, Dr. S. Qamar, Dr. Vasquez, RN II M. Ali, and RN II M. WrightPearson for deliberate indifference to Plaintiff’s serious medical needs in violation of the Eighth

Amendment. (Doc. 26.) 1

Defendants Dr. S. Qamar, Dr. Vasquez, and RN II M. Wright-Pearson have not been successfully served

1

and have not otherwise appeared in this action.

1

Case 1:08-cv-00095-EPG Document 99 Filed 11/08/10 Page 1 of 4
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

On April 8, 2010, Plaintiff filed a motion for partial summary judgment. (Doc. 52.) On

April 22, 2010, defendants Ali, Akanno, Lopez, and Youssef (“Defendants”) filed a motion to

deny Plaintiff’s motion as premature. (Doc. 58.) On May 3, 2010, Plaintiff filed an ex-parte

motion to require Defendants to file a response to the motion for summary judgment. (Doc. 62.)

On May 10, 2010, Plaintiff filed an opposition to Defendants’ motion. (Doc. 65.)

II. DEFENDANTS’ MOTION

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(f) provides, “[S]hould it appear from the affidavits of

a party opposing the motion that the party cannot for reasons stated present by affidavit facts

essential to justify the party’s opposition, the court may refuse the application for judgment or

may order a continuance to permit affidavits to be obtained or deposition to be taken or discovery

to be had or may make such other order as is just.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(f). Under Local Rule

260(b), “If a need for discovery is asserted as a basis for denial of the motion, the party opposing

the motion shall provide a specification of the particular facts on which discovery is to be had or

the issues on which discovery is necessary.” L. R. 260(b). Where a summary judgment motion

is filed early in the litigation, before a party has had any realistic opportunity to pursue discovery

relating to its theory of the case, district courts should grant any Rule 56(f) motion freely. 

Burlington Northern Santa Fe R. Co. v. Assiniboine and Sioux Tribes, 323 F.3d 767, 774 (9th

Cir. 2003). 

Defendants move the Court to deny Plaintiff’s motion for partial summary judgment as

premature, without prejudice, on the ground that Defendants have not had an opportunity to

conduct any discovery or marshal evidence to oppose the motion. Defendants note that Plaintiff

filed his motion for partial summary judgment within days of the date Defendants filed their

answer. Defendants argue that the case is not ready for summary judgment because the deadline

for Defendants to bring a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b) is May 31, 2010; the discovery cutoff deadline is November 30, 2010; and the deadline for the filing of dispositive motions is

February 7, 2011. Defendants Qamar, Vasquez, and Wright-Pearson have not been served. 

Counsel for Defendants declares that he needs to: 1) conduct discovery; 2) obtain Plaintiff’s

medical file; 3) obtain the records of Plaintiff’s state court action on the same subject; and 4)

2

Case 1:08-cv-00095-EPG Document 99 Filed 11/08/10 Page 2 of 4
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

obtain an expert witness review of Plaintiff’s medication and treatment, before he can oppose

Plaintiff’s motion for partial summary judgment. (Decl. of Counsel, Doc. 58-3.)

In opposition, Plaintiff argues that (1) his motion is not premature under Rule 56; (2) the

evidence by which the motion is filed came from the California Department of Corrections and

Rehabilitation’s Federal Receiver; (3) as a matter of law, the motion for summary judgment must

be granted because there are no triable issues of facts to be disputed, and evidence has shown a

significant delay in medical care; and (4) Defendants need not conduct discovery or marshal

evidence because all documents Plaintiff filed came from his medical records that the Federal

Receiver reviewed before coming to a conclusion.

III. DISCUSSION

Plaintiff argues that the Court should rule on his motion for partial summary judgment

without allowing Defendants the opportunity to pursue discovery. Although Rule 56 allows a

motion for summary judgment to be filed “at any time,” Rule 56 also allows the court to issue an

order, as is just, to refuse the motion or order a continuance for the opposing party to pursue

discovery. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56. Here, even if Plaintiff ultimately prevails on his motion,

Defendants are entitled to an opportunity to pursue discovery before responding to the motion. 

Defendants filed their answer on March 30, 2010, and Plaintiff filed his summary judgment

motion only nine days later on April 8, 2010, before Defendants had any realistic opportunity to

pursue discovery. Therefore, Defendants’ motion to deny Plaintiff’s motion for partial summary 2

judgment as premature shall be granted. In light of this ruling, Plaintiff’s ex-parte motion to

require Defendants to file a response to Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment shall be denied

as moot.

IV. CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Defendants’ motion to deny Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment as

premature, filed on April 22, 2010, is GRANTED;

Defendants initially filed their answer on March 30, 2010, and then re-filed it on April 5, 2010 per the

2

clerk’s directive. (Docs. 45, 46, 49.)

3

Case 1:08-cv-00095-EPG Document 99 Filed 11/08/10 Page 3 of 4
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. Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment, filed on April 8, 2010, is DENIED as

premature, without prejudice to renewal of the motion at a later stage of the

proceedings; and

3. Plaintiff’s ex-parte motion to require Defendants to file a response to Plaintiff’s

motion for summary judgment, filed on May 3, 2010, is DENIED as moot.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: November 8, 2010 /s/ Gary S. Austin 

6i0kij UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

4

Case 1:08-cv-00095-EPG Document 99 Filed 11/08/10 Page 4 of 4