Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_04-cv-01794/USCOURTS-azd-2_04-cv-01794-0/pdf.json

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

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Norberto Romo, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) CIV 04-1794 PHX FJM (VAM)

)

Dora Schriro, et al., ) O R D E R

)

 Defendants. )

On March 13, 2006, plaintiff filed a Motion for a telephonic

hearing regarding discovery disputes. (Doc. 34). The Court will

deny the Motion for a hearing because plaintiff has now filed a

Motion to Compel (Doc. 38) and defendants have responded (Doc.

42). These documents give the Court sufficient information to

rule on the discovery disputes.

On March 21, 2006, plaintiff filed a Motion for an extension

of time to comply with the Court's Order dated March 20, 2006. 

(Doc. 37). It appears that plaintiff is requesting an extension

of the discovery dispute deadline (March 20, 2006) which was set

by this Court's Order entered February 2, 2006. (Doc. 32). Since

plaintiff filed a Motion to Compel, which will be dealt with in

this Order, this Motion for an extension of time will be denied as

moot.

On March 28, 2006, plaintiff filed a Motion for an extension

Case 2:04-cv-01794-FJM-VAM Document 55 Filed 05/08/06 Page 1 of 6
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

Rand v. Rowland, 154 F.3d 952, 962 (9th Cir. 1998).

2

of time to comply with this Court's Order. (Doc. 40). In the

Motion, plaintiff appears to ask for additional time to file a

dispositive motion because of outstanding discovery disputes. The

docket reflects that plaintiff filed a Motion for Summary Judgment

on April 24, 2006 (Docs. 45, 46); therefore, this Motion will be

granted and plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment will be deemed

timely filed.

On April 19, 2006 defendants filed a Motion for Summary

Judgment. (Doc. 43). 

NOTICE--WARNING TO PLAINTIFF

THIS NOTICE IS REQUIRED TO BE GIVEN TO YOU BY THE COURT1

The defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment seeks to have

your case dismissed. A motion for summary judgment under Rule 56

of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure will, if granted, end your

case.

Rule 56 tells you what you must do in order to oppose a

motion for summary judgment. Generally, summary judgment must be

granted when there is no genuine issue of material fact--that is,

if there is no real dispute about any fact that would affect the

result of your case, the party who asked for summary judgment is

entitled to judgment as a matter of law, which will end your case. 

When a party you are suing makes a motion for summary judgment

that is properly supported by declarations (or other sworn

testimony), you cannot simply rely on what your complaint says. 

Instead, you must set out specific facts in declarations,

Case 2:04-cv-01794-FJM-VAM Document 55 Filed 05/08/06 Page 2 of 6
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

depositions, answers to interrogatories, or authenticated

documents, as provided in Rule 56(e), that contradict the facts

shown in the defendants' declarations and documents and show that

there is a genuine issue of material fact for trial. If you do

not submit your own evidence in opposition, summary judgment, if

appropriate, may be entered against you. If summary judgment is

granted, your case will be dismissed and there will be no trial.

LRCiv 56.1 of the Rules of Practice of the United States

District Court for the District of Arizona also requires, in

addition, that you include as a part of your opposition to a 

Motion for Summary Judgment a separate statement of facts in

opposition to the Motion for Summary Judgment. 

(a) Any party filing a motion for summary judgment

shall set forth separately from the memorandum of law,

and in full, the specific facts on which that party

relies in support of the motion. The specific facts

shall be set forth in serial fashion and not in

narrative form. As to each fact, the statement shall

refer to a specific portion of the record where the fact

may be found (i.e., affidavit, deposition, etc.). Any

party opposing a motion for summary judgment must comply

with the foregoing in setting forth the specific facts,

which the opposing party asserts, including those facts

which establish a genuine issue of material fact

precluding summary judgment in favor of the moving

party. In the alternative, the movant and the party

opposing the motion shall jointly file a stipulation

signed by the parties setting forth a statement of the

stipulated facts if the parties agree there is no

genuine issue of any material fact. As to any

stipulated facts, the parties so stipulating may state 

that their stipulations are entered into only for the

purposes of the motion for summary judgment and are not

intended to be otherwise binding.

Additional provisions of LRCiv 7.2, Rules of Practice of the

United States District Court for the District of Arizona are as

follows:

Case 2:04-cv-01794-FJM-VAM Document 55 Filed 05/08/06 Page 3 of 6
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 4

Subparagraph (e) of that Rule provides:

Unless otherwise permitted by the Court, a motion

including its supporting memorandum, and the response

including its supporting memorandum, each shall not

exceed seventeen (17) pages, exclusive of attachments

and any required statement of facts. Unless otherwise

permitted by the Court, a reply including its supporting

memorandum shall not exceed eleven (11) pages, exclusive

of attachments.

Subparagraph (i) of LRCiv 7.2 provides:

If a motion does not conform in all substantial respects

with the requirements of this Local Rule, or if the

opposing party does not serve and file the required

answering memoranda, or if counsel for any party fails

to appear at the time and place assigned for oral

argument, such non-compliance may be deemed a consent to

the denial or granting of the motion and the Court may

dispose of the motion summarily.

It is plaintiff's obligation to timely respond to all

motions. The failure of plaintiff to respond to defendants'

Motion for Summary Judgment may in the discretion of the Court be

deemed a consent to the granting of that Motion without further

notice, and judgment may be entered dismissing the complaint and

action with prejudice pursuant to LRCiv 7.2(i). See Brydges v.

Lewis, 18 F.3d 651 (9th Cir. 1994) (per curiam).

On March 23, 2006, plaintiff filed a Motion to Compel

Discovery. (Doc. 38). Defendants filed their Response opposing a

Motion to Compel. (Doc. 42). Plaintiff's Motion to Compel

concerns requests for production of documents. The Court notes

the Motion to Compel is not in proper order as plaintiff failed to

attach his actual requests and the actual responses. Instead,

plaintiff has simply summarized or re-stated in the Motion his

requests and response. However, in Exhibit A to defendants'

response to the Motion to Compel, defendants have set forth the

Case 2:04-cv-01794-FJM-VAM Document 55 Filed 05/08/06 Page 4 of 6
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 5

requests and their responses. Since plaintiff failed to file a

proper Motion to Compel the Court will rely on Exhibit A to

defendants' Response. The Court notes that plaintiff's summary of

what he requested is different from Exhibit A to the response. 

Review of the "Modified Request for Production of Documents"

(Exhibit A to Doc. 42) shows that as to requests for production

Nos. 1, 2, 7, 8, 10 and 11 documentation either does not exist or

defendants do not possess such documentation. Therefore,

plaintiff's Motion to Compel on these requests for production is

denied. As to requests for production Nos. 4, 5, 6 and 15, the

objections to the requests are sustained. Because plaintiff has

not documented his other requests and they differ from the

requests set forth in defendants' documentation, the Motion to

Compel will be denied on all other requests as the Motion to

Compel is not properly supported.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED denying plaintiff's Motion for a

Telephonic Hearing. (Doc. 34).

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED denying as moot plaintiff's Motion for

extension of time to comply with Court's Order dated March 20,

2006. (Doc. 37).

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED denying without prejudice plaintiff's

Motion to Compel discovery. (Doc. 38).

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED granting plaintiff's Motion for

extension of time to comply with Court's Order. (Doc. 40). 

Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment and Statement of Facts

filed April 24, 2006 (Docs. 45, 46) shall be deemed timely filed.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff shall have until May 31,

Case 2:04-cv-01794-FJM-VAM Document 55 Filed 05/08/06 Page 5 of 6
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 6

2006 within which to file a response to defendants' Motion for

Summary Judgment, together with supporting affidavits or other

appropriate exhibits and a separate Statement of Facts. 

Defendants shall have until June 20, 2006 to file a reply.

DATED this 5th day of May, 2006.

Case 2:04-cv-01794-FJM-VAM Document 55 Filed 05/08/06 Page 6 of 6