Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-01092/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-01092-15/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 requesting discovery to oppose Defendant’s

pending exhaustion-related motion for summary judgment, filed November 4, 2016. 

I.

RELEVANT BACKGROUND

On September 26, 2016, Defendant filed a motion for summary judgment for failure to exhaust 

the administrative remedies. On October 6, 2016, Plaintiff filed an opposition, along with a motion to 

stay discovery and in camera review hearing. (ECF Nos. 55, 56, 57.) In his opposition, Plaintiff states 

that it “is being prepared without plaintiff’s legal property that was taken by prison officials on 9-21-

16 which the defendant is aware of per letter dated 9-21-16.” (ECF No. 55.) Defendant filed a reply 

to Plaintiff’s opposition on October 13, 2016. (ECF No. 60.) 

BILLY COY COCHRAN,

 Plaintiff,

v.

E. AGUIRRE,

Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

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

ORDER REGARDING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION 

FOR DISCOVERY TO OPPOSE DEFENDANTS’ 

MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, AND 

DIRECTING DEFENDANTS TO PROVIDE A 

LIMITED RESPONSE WITHIN TWENTY-ONE 

DAYS

Case 1:15-cv-01092-AWI-SAB Document 69 Filed 11/10/16 Page 1 of 4
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

On October 13, 2016, the Court denied Plaintiff’s previous request for a copy of the case file 

and other legal documents. (ECF No. 61.) On October 17, 2016, the Court denied Plaintiff’s motion 

for a stay of discovery until the return of his legal property. (ECF No. 61.) The Court specifically 

stated that “Plaintiff fails to demonstrate what documents are necessary to oppose Defendant’s 

pending motion for summary judgment for failure to exhaust the administrative remedies or how the 

documents submitted by Defendant’s are not sufficient to resolve the motion.” (See Def.’s Mot. 

Summ. J., Attach. Exs., ECF No. 62.) On October 24, 2016, the Court denied Plaintiff’s second 

motion to stay the proceeding, stating “Plaintiff again fails to demonstrate what documents are 

necessary to oppose the motion and/or how the documents already submitted are not sufficient to 

resolve the motion.” (ECF No. 64.) 

II.

DISCUSSION

A. Legal Standard

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) 

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). 

B. Plaintiff’s Motion 

In the instant motion, Plaintiff requests an order for the Clerk of the Court to produce 

documents filed with the court, documents in the California Department of Corrections and 

Rehabilitation possession that have been removed from his central file, and documents in Defendant’s 

Case 1:15-cv-01092-AWI-SAB Document 69 Filed 11/10/16 Page 2 of 4
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

possession. This is essentially Plaintiff’s third request seeking the documentation to oppose 

Defendant’s exhaustion-related motion for summary judgment. 

As an initial matter, the Court notes that although Plaintiff contends he does not have access to 

his legal property and documentation from his central file, Plaintiff is able to identify by name and 

docket entry number several documents filed with the Court, and several inmate grievance forms by 

log number. Thus, it appears that Plaintiff has some access to his legal documentation. 

Nonetheless, to the extent Plaintiff requests copies of documents filed with the Court, Plaintiff 

was previously advised, the Court does not provide free copies of case documents to parties. The 

Clerk of Court charges $.50 per page for copies of documents. See 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a). Copies of up 

to twenty pages may be made by the Clerk Office at this Court upon written request and prepayment 

of the copy fees. The fact that the Court has granted leave for Plaintiff to proceed in forma pauperis 

does not entitle him to free copies of documents from the Court. Under 28 U.S.C. § 2250, the Clerk is 

not required to furnish copies without costs to an indigent plaintiff except by order of the judge. 

Plaintiff is obligated to make and keep a copy of every document submitted to the Court or exchanged 

between the parties. Indeed, over the course of this action, Plaintiff has submitted numerous exhibits, 

and the Court will not weed through hundreds of pages of exhibits to determine and locate the 

documentation that Plaintiff seeks. If Plaintiff believes the documentation is already in the case file, 

Plaintiff need to simply reference such document for the Court to locate and consider. McLaughlin v. 

Liu, 849 F.2d 1205, 1206 n. 3 (9th Cir. 1988) (“[It] is well-established that a party opposing summary

judgment may rely on material already on file in the case.”) Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion for copies 

of certain documents from the case file shall be denied. 

With regard to Plaintiff’s request for a copy of certain discovery requests and responses, the 

Court does not and cannot provide Plaintiff a copy of such documents. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s 

request for a copy of discovery documents shall be denied. 

Lastly, with regard to Plaintiff’s claim that he does not presently have access to his legal 

property and documentation from his central file, the Court cannot adequately resolve such claim 

without input from Defendant. Accordingly, Defendant will be ordered to file a response to Plaintiff’s 

claim that he does not have access to his legal property and documentation within his central file. 

Case 1:15-cv-01092-AWI-SAB Document 69 Filed 11/10/16 Page 3 of 4
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

III.

ORDER

Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s request for copies of court filings and discovery requests is DENIED; and

2. Within twenty-one (21) days from the date of service of this order, Defendant shall file 

a response to Plaintiff’s request that he does not have access to his legal property and 

documentation within his central file necessary to oppose the pending motion for 

summary judgment. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 9, 2016 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:15-cv-01092-AWI-SAB Document 69 Filed 11/10/16 Page 4 of 4