Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_03-cv-00852/USCOURTS-caed-2_03-cv-00852-1/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

CHRIS BATTLE,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-03-0852 LKK DAD P

vs.

D.L. RUNNELS, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

The undersigned has issued findings and recommendations recommending that

defendants’ October 20, 2004 motion for summary judgment be granted. The parties were

granted twenty days to file any objections. Plaintiff has submitted a request for enlargement of

time to file objections and a Rule 56(f) motion.

Plaintiff states that “[e]vidence needed, is unavailable and will require a minimum

of 45 days to locate, obtain affidavits, and present genuine issues and material fact.” Plaintiff

does not identify any document or declaration he would locate or obtain. Nor does plaintiff

describe the contents of the documents and declarations he would locate or obtain, or explain

what the documents and declarations would prove. Plaintiff merely asserts that unidentified

evidence will show that the defendants “are not truthful” and “change the legal schematics of this

case.” Plaintiff asks for an order authorizing him to conduct an investigation that will include,

Case 2:03-cv-00852-LKK -DAD Document 69 Filed 08/24/05 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

but not be limited to, “contacting staff and inmate witnesses” and obtaining “relevant

documented reports and evidence contained in his Central file, and in the custody of

Defendants.” Plaintiff does not identify the staff or inmate witnesses he would contact or the

reports and other evidence he would obtain if permitted to conduct an investigation at this late

date. He states that he is merely seeking the opportunity “to locate, prepare, and present the legal

bullets per se, to shoot at Defendant’s Summary Judgment motion” or, in the alternative, an

opportunity to amend his complaint in ways that are not specified. 

The incident at issue in this case occurred on November 8, 2001. More than three

and half years after the incident, plaintiff has filed a second Rule 56(f) motion that is as vague

and inadequate as the Rule 56(f) motion presented nine months ago in his opposition to

defendants’ summary judgment motion.

The procedural history of this case demonstrates that

plaintiff had adequate time for discovery. Defendants appeared in

the action on September 9, 2003, and a discovery order was issued

on September 12, 2003. The court’s scheduling order permitted

the parties to conduct discovery through September 3, 2004. 

Despite the fact that discovery had proceeded for a full year, the

undersigned gave careful consideration to plaintiff’s untimely

motion to compel and his last-minute application to extend the

pretrial motion deadline for the purpose of exploring possible

amendments to his complaint. The undersigned determined that

the discovery responses at issue were adequate, that plaintiff failed

to show how any of the additional documents sought are relevant

to the claims alleged against defendants Martin, Perry, and

Ingwerson, and that plaintiff had not made the required showing of

good cause for a modification of the scheduling order. In

opposition to defendants’ summary judgment motion, plaintiff has

offered no additional information or argument that supports a Rule

56(f) continuance.

(Findings & Recommendations filed July 25, 2005, at 12.) Plaintiff’s second Rule 56(f) motion

offers no basis for a Rule 56(f) continuance. The motion will be denied.

The twenty-day period for filing objections will be extended by twenty days. No

further extension of time will be granted for the filing of objections.

///// 

Case 2:03-cv-00852-LKK -DAD Document 69 Filed 08/24/05 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

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s August 19, 2005 motion pursuant to Rule 56(f) is denied;

2. Plaintiff’s August 19, 2005 request for enlargement of time to file objections is

granted in part;

3. Plaintiff shall place his objections to findings and recommendations in the mail

to the court and defendants’ counsel on or before September 6, 2005; no further extension of

time will be granted for this purpose; and 

4. Any reply to objections shall be filed and served on or before September 19,

2005.

DATED: August 23, 2005.

DAD:13

batt0852.eotobjs

Case 2:03-cv-00852-LKK -DAD Document 69 Filed 08/24/05 Page 3 of 3