Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_01-cv-01218/USCOURTS-caed-2_01-cv-01218-7/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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

EVERETT L. McCOY,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-01-1218 DFL GGH P

vs.

CAL. A. TERHUNE, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a civil rights action pursuant to

42 U.S.C. § 1983. On September 7, 2005, defendants filed a summary judgment motion. On

October 21, 2005, plaintiff filed a request to stay proceedings so that he may conduct discovery. 

The court construes plaintiff’s request as a motion pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(f). For the

following reasons, this motion is denied.

Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(f) provides, 

Should it appear from the affidavits of a party opposing the [summary judgment] 

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

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

may order a continuance to permit affidavits to be obtained or depositions to be 

taken or discovery to be had or may make such order as is just.

In his motion, plaintiff states that after reviewing defendants’ summary judgment

motion, he has determined that additional discovery is required in order to file an adequate

Case 2:01-cv-01218-JAM-GGH Document 102 Filed 12/13/05 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

2

opposition. Plaintiff lists four specific categories of documents he is seeking: 1) the Program

Guide and or other policies concerning mental health services that CDCR was required to

provide mentally inmates with during the relevant time period; 2) the 2001 CSP-Sacramento

Operation Procedure or other materials governing the procedures for determining housing

assignments for inmates in the Enhanced Outpatient Program and Administrative Segregation

Unit; 3) the 2001 CSP-Operational Procedure governing the issuance of property to inmates; 4)

an edited or redacted version of the confidential materials used to place plaintiff in administrative

segregation.

In support of his motion, plaintiff states that he did not previously conduct

discovery in this action due to mistake, inadvertence or excusable neglect. In the October 28,

2005, opposition to the pending motion, defendants state that they would be willing to provide

plaintiff with the first three categories of documents listed above to the extent they can be

located. With respect to plaintiff’s request for confidential information, defendants observe that

they submitted this information to the court under seal in support of their summary judgment

motion. Defendants argue that the information should not be released to plaintiff for security

purposes.

The court observes that on October 20, 2004, a Discovery Order was issued which

contained information regarding the federal rules concerning discovery. On February 9, 2005,

the court issued a scheduling order which set the discovery cut-off date for May 13, 2005. On

May 2, 2005, plaintiff filed a request for a new discovery cut-off date. On June 14, 2005, the

court denied this request because it was not well supported. On September 16, 2005, the district

court denied plaintiff’s request for reconsideration of the June 14, 2005, order.

“The failure to conduct discovery diligently is grounds for the denial of a Rule

56(f) motion.” Pfingston v. Ronan Eng’g Co., 284 F.3d 999, 1005 (9th Cir. 2002). After

reviewing the record, the court finds that plaintiff did not diligently conduct discovery. For this

reason, the motion is denied.

Case 2:01-cv-01218-JAM-GGH Document 102 Filed 12/13/05 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

Although defendants oppose plaintiff’s motion, they propose that they serve

plaintiff with the three categories of documents discussed above and file formal notice of service

with the court. Defendants suggest that the formal notification would serve to trigger a thirty-day

period within which plaintiff is to serve his opposition to defendants’ summary judgment motion. 

The court agrees with this suggestion and will so order. 

Plaintiff has also requested the appointment of counsel. The United States

Supreme Court has ruled that district courts lack authority to require counsel to represent

indigent prisoners in § 1983 cases. Mallard v. United States Dist. Court, 490 U.S. 296, 298

(1989). In certain exceptional circumstances, the court may request the voluntary assistance of

counsel pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). Terrell v. Brewer, 935 F.2d 1015, 1017 (9th Cir.

1991); Wood v. Housewright, 900 F.2d 1332, 1335-36 (9th Cir. 1990). In the present case, the

court does not find the required exceptional circumstances. Plaintiff’s request for the

appointment of counsel will therefore be denied.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s October 21, 2005, request to stay proceedings, construed as a

request pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(f), is denied;

2. Within thirty days of the date of this order, defendants shall serve plaintiff with

the documents discussed above; defendants shall file notice with the court of this service within

that time;

3. Plaintiff’s opposition to defendants’ summary judgment is due sixty days from

the date of this order;

4. Plaintiff’s November 10, 2005, motion for the appointment of counsel is

denied.

DATED: 12/12/05

/s/ Gregory G. Hollows

 

GREGORY G. HOLLOWS

mc1218.den UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:01-cv-01218-JAM-GGH Document 102 Filed 12/13/05 Page 3 of 3