Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_09-cv-00456/USCOURTS-caed-1_09-cv-00456-23/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

DANIEL MANRIQUEZ,

Plaintiff,

v.

HUCHINS, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

CASE NO. 1:09-cv-00456-LJO-BAM PC

ORDER ADDRESSING MOTION FOR

CLARIFICATION AND PLAINTIFF’S

OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ MOTION

FOR AN EXTENSION OF TIME

(ECF Nos. 198, 199, 200)

I. Background

Plaintiff Daniel Manriquez (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma

pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action is proceeding on the

Second Amended Complaint, filed November 22, 2011, against Defendants Munoz, Clausings,

Omos, Hutchins, Reynoso, Hacker, Roberson, Morse, and Paz for violations of the Eighth

Amendment. Following extensive discovery, Plaintiff filed his second amended complaint and

certain of the claims and defendants were dismissed for Plaintiff’s failure to state a claim. 

Accordingly, the Court denied four outstanding motions to compel and ordered the parties to file a

statement of discoveryneeded. On February 1, 2012, Plaintiff filed a statement of discoveryneeded. 

Upon order of the Court, Defendants filed a response on April 2, 2012. On April 26, 2012, Plaintiff

filed a motion for summary judgment. An order issued on May 4, 2012, ordering Defendants to

serve responses within thirty days and providing Plaintiff with a final opportunity to file one motion

to compel regarding any deficiencies in Defendants responses within sixty days. Defendants filed

a motion for an extension of time to file an opposition to Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment

1

Case 1:09-cv-00456-BAM Document 201 Filed 05/23/12 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

27

28

on May 15, 2012. On May 21, 2012, Plaintiff filed an emergency motion requesting clarification

on what his motion to compel address, and an opposition to Defendants’ motion for an extension of

time and declaration in support.

II. Opposition to Extension of Time

Defendants requested a twenty-eight day extension of time to file their opposition to

Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment because Plaintiff’s motion, which is handwritten, is

difficult to read and comprehend, includes a wide variety of allegations, and includes more than 300

pages of exhibits. Plaintiff objects to the motion for an extension of time because Defendants failed

to meet their burden under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(f). 

Defendants did not request an extension of time in order to obtain additional discovery to

oppose Plaintiff’s motion, rather the motion requests additional time to address Plaintiff’s claims and

the evidence presented. Accordingly, Defendants motion was not brought under Rule 56(f), and

Defendants only needed to show good cause for the request to be granted. The Court finds good

cause to extend time for Defendants’ opposition to the motion. 

III. Motion for Clarification

To the extent that any of the responses to Plaintiff’s statement of discovery needed are

deficient, as described in the order issued May 4, 2012, Plaintiff is to file a single motion to compel

which specifically address only the discovery that is at dispute. Each request must specifically

address why the information is relevant and, if Defendants objected, why the objection is not

meritorious. Plaintiff is advised and admonished that the Court has been provided with the large

volume of discovery that Defendants have served in response to his numerous requests and only

those requests included in the statement of discovery needed that are relevant and actually in dispute

should be addressed in any motion to compel. 

Any motion to compel may only address the statement of discovery needed and only those

requests should be included in the motion. The Court emphasizes this point. Previous discovery

requests are moot as the discovery deadline has passed, and the Court ordered the parties to address

all discovery needed in the single statement, which Plaintiff filed on February 14, 2012. 

The discovery and scheduling order issued September 22, 2010, specifically states that the

2

Case 1:09-cv-00456-BAM Document 201 Filed 05/23/12 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

27

28

parties are not required to meet and confer as required by the Local Rule and Federal Rules of Civil

Procedure. (Discovery and Scheduling Order ¶ 5. ECF No. 42.) Accordingly, Plaintiff need not

include any attempts to meet and confer in his motion.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: May 23, 2012 /s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe 

10c20k UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

3

Case 1:09-cv-00456-BAM Document 201 Filed 05/23/12 Page 3 of 3