Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_03-cv-00237/USCOURTS-cand-5_03-cv-00237-1/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

Order Continuing Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment; Directing Plaintiff to File Response 

P:\pro-se\sj.jf\cr.03\Halbert237discmtd 1

NOT FOR CITATION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LAWRENCE DALE HALBERT,

Plaintiff,

 vs.

ALAMEDA COUNTY DEPUTY

SHERIFF HERBERT, et al.,

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C 03-0237 JF (PR)

ORDER CONTINUING

DEFENDANTS’ MOTION

FOR SUMMARY

JUDGMENT; DIRECTING

PLAINTIFF TO FILE

RESPONSE 

(Docket No. 52)

Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, filed a civil rights complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 

§ 1983 challenging the conditions of his confinement while he was a civil detainee at the

Alameda County Jail pending trial proceedings pursuant to California’s “Sexually Violent

Predators Act,” (“SVPA”) see Cal. Welf & Inst. Code §§ 6600 - 6609.3. The Court

initially dismissed Plaintiff’s complaint with leave to amend as to eight of the claims and

dismissed two claims without leave to amend. Plaintiff filed an amended complaint. On

March 29, 2005, the Court ordered service of the amended complaint. The Court granted

Defendants’ ex parte request for extension of time to file a motion for summary judgment

and Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment on January 26, 2006 addressing the

**Original filed 9/28/06**

Case 5:03-cv-00237-JF Document 77 Filed 09/28/06 Page 1 of 5
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

Order Continuing Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment; Directing Plaintiff to File Response 

P:\pro-se\sj.jf\cr.03\Halbert237discmtd 2

merits of the amended complaint. Plaintiff has filed an opposition alleging that the

motion is premature because discovery is on going and incomplete and that there are

material facts in dispute. Plaintiff maintains that Defendants are still in the process of

obtaining documents based upon Plaintiff’s discovery requests. See Pl.’s Opp’n at 2-4.

Defendants have filed a reply asserting that Plaintiff fails to identify what evidence he

needs to discover and that there is no pending or outstanding discovery in this action. See

Defs. Reply at 4; Decl. of Jasper I. Rasmussen In Support of Defs. Reply at 2. 

DISCUSSION

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(f) provides that if a party opposing summary

judgment demonstrates a need for further discovery in order to obtain facts essential to

justify the party’s opposition, the trial court may deny the motion for summary judgment

or continue the hearing to allow for such discovery. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(f); Margolis

v. Ryan, 140 F.3d 850, 853 (9th Cir. 1998). In making a Rule 56(f) motion, a party

opposing summary judgment must make clear “what information is sought and how it

would preclude summary judgment.” Id. at 853; see, e.g., Nicholas v. Wallenstein, 

266 F.3d 1083, 1088-89 (9th Cir. 2001) (district court did not abuse its discretion in

denying motion for continuance under Rule 56(f) where plaintiffs had already conducted

a large amount of informal discovery and where they did not make clear what information

was sought and how it would preclude summary judgment); Margolis, 140 F.3d at 853-54

(district court correctly denied motion for continuance to engage in further discovery

under Rule 56(f) where plaintiff did not provide any basis or factual support for his

assertions that further discovery would lead to the facts and testimony he described, and

his assertions appeared based on nothing more than “wild speculation”); see also NoriegaPerez v. United States, 179 F.3d 1166, 1170 n.1 (9th Cir. 1999) (denial of discovery

motion proper where party failed to show requested documents were relevant and could

have affected the outcome of the summary judgment motion); Weinberg v. Whatcom

County, 241 F.3d 746, 750-51 (9th Cir. 2001) (where plaintiff was represented by

counsel, district court did not abuse its discretion in denying plaintiff’s request for

Case 5:03-cv-00237-JF Document 77 Filed 09/28/06 Page 2 of 5
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

Order Continuing Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment; Directing Plaintiff to File Response 

P:\pro-se\sj.jf\cr.03\Halbert237discmtd 3

continuance to obtain expert report, which was made in memorandum and at oral

argument, rather than in Rule 56(f) motion). 

Summary judgment is disfavored where relevant evidence remains to be

discovered, particularly in cases involving confined pro se plaintiffs. Jones v. Blanas,

393 F.3d 918, 930 (9th Cir. 2004); Klingele v. Eikenberry, 849 F.2d 409, 412 (9th Cir.

1988). Summary judgment in the face of requests for additional discovery in such cases

is appropriate only where such discovery would be “fruitless” with respect to the proof of

a viable claim. Jones, 393 F.3d at 930; Klingele, 849 F.2d at 412.

The Court notes that Plaintiff has had a substantial period of time to conduct

discovery and has already filed his opposition to Defendants’ motion for summary

judgment. However, the Court will allow Plaintiff to file a response within fourteen

days, as set forth below, explaining: (1) what, if any, additional discovery remains to be

done; and (2) why this potential discovery is essential before a resolution of the issues

presented in the pending motion for summary judgment. Defendants may file a reply to

Plaintiff’s response, within fourteen days, as set forth below. The Court notes that

Plaintiff’s request for further discovery is not granted at this time, rather the Court will

allow Plaintiff to articulate his discovery request and provide specific facts, and the

relevance of these facts, to the issues pending in Defendants’ motion for summary

judgment. 

CONCLUSION

1. Defendants’ motion for summary judgment (docket no. 52) is DENIED 

without prejudice and CONTINUED in order for the parties to submit further briefing as

set forth below. 

2. Within fourteen days of this order, Plaintiff shall file a response to this

order, and serve a copy on Defendants’ counsel, explaining: (1) what, if any, additional

discovery remains to be done; and (2) why this potential discovery is essential before a

resolution of the issues in the pending motion for summary judgment. If Plaintiff fails to

file a response, the Court will re-notice and review the merits of the pending motion for

Case 5:03-cv-00237-JF Document 77 Filed 09/28/06 Page 3 of 5
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

Order Continuing Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment; Directing Plaintiff to File Response 

P:\pro-se\sj.jf\cr.03\Halbert237discmtd 4

summary judgment. 

3. Defendants may file a reply to Plaintiff’s response no later than fourteen

days after receipt of Plaintiff’s response. 

4. The response shall be deemed submitted as of the date Defendants’ reply is

due. Once the matter is submitted, the Court will re-notice Defendants’ motion for

summary judgment, and if appropriate at that time, rule upon the motion. No hearing will

be held on the response, or the motion unless the Court so orders at a later date. 

5. All communications by the Plaintiff with the Court must be served on

Defendants’ counsel by mailing a true copy of the document to Defendants’ counsel.

6. It is Plaintiff’s responsibility to prosecute this case. Plaintiff must keep the

Court and the parties informed of any change of address and must comply with the

Court’s orders in a timely fashion. Failure to do so may result in the dismissal of this

action for failure to prosecute pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: _______________ JEREMY FOGEL 

United States District Judge

9/28/06 /s/jeremy fogel

Case 5:03-cv-00237-JF Document 77 Filed 09/28/06 Page 4 of 5
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

Order Continuing Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment; Directing Plaintiff to File Response 

P:\pro-se\sj.jf\cr.03\Halbert237discmtd 5

A copy of this order was mailed to the following:

Lawrence Dale Halbert Sr.

21701 Foothill Blvd., # 127

Hayward, CA 94541

Steven C. Wolan

Andrea S. Carlise

Jesper I. Rasmussen

Patton, Wolan, & Boxer

1814 Franklin Street

Suite 501

Oakland, CA 94612-3438

Case 5:03-cv-00237-JF Document 77 Filed 09/28/06 Page 5 of 5