Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_04-cv-00355/USCOURTS-caed-2_04-cv-00355-22/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

DOUGLASS W. HYSELL, No. CIV S-04-0355-FCD-CMK-P

Plaintiff, 

vs. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

C.K. PLILER, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, brings this civil rights action pursuant

to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Pending before the court is plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment (Doc.

89).

For several reasons, the court finds that plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment

is premature. First, while discovery has been opened in this case, there is currently no discovery

cut-off date and discovery is not yet complete. Moreover, based on plaintiff’s filing of a motion

to compel discovery responses, it would appear that at least plaintiff needs additional discovery

on the merits of his claims. Second, there is still an issue concerning defendant Hubbard’s

appearance in this action. Until this court has jurisdiction over all the defendants, it does not

make sense to consider summary judgment. Finally, it appears that a potentially related case is

Case 2:04-cv-00355-FCD-CMK Document 108 Filed 06/02/06 Page 1 of 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

2

pending in the Northern District of California. Specifically, if class certification is granted in

that case, the contours of the relief available to plaintiff in this case may change. Therefore, it

would be prudent not to consider the merits of this case until the class certification issue is

resolved. 

By these findings and recommendations, the court does not intend to express any

opinion as to the substance of plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment or the merits of his

claims in general. These findings and recommendations are intended solely as suggesting a

procedural structure for the remainder of this litigation.

Based on the foregoing, the undersigned recommends that plaintiff’s motions for

summary judgment (Doc. 89) be denied without prejudice to renew following the close of

discovery in this case. 

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District

Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within ten days

after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written

objections with the court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge's

Findings and Recommendations.” Failure to file objections within the specified time may waive

the right to appeal the District Court's order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

DATED: June 1, 2006.

______________________________________

CRAIG M. KELLISON

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:04-cv-00355-FCD-CMK Document 108 Filed 06/02/06 Page 2 of 2