Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_96-cv-05576/USCOURTS-caed-1_96-cv-05576-12/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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CHAPPEL,

Plaintiff,

v.

DICKERSON, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

CASE NO. 1:096-cv-05576-AWI DLB-PC

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S

REQUEST TO FILE SECOND MOTION

FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

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 plaintiff’s amended complaint filed

August 5, 1996, involving allegations that defendant Dickerson was deliberately indifferent to

plaintiff’s safety and retaliated against plaintiff by encouraging other inmates to attack plaintiff at

Corcoran State Prison. On March 14, 2007, the Court denied defendant’s motion for summary

judgment and on June 14, 2007, the Court denied defendant’s motion for reconsideration. On June

15, 2007, defendant filed a request to file a second motion for summary judgment. Plaintiff filed an

opposition to defendant’s request on June 29, 2007. 

Case 1:96-cv-05576-AWI -DLB Document 150 Filed 01/16/08 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

27

28

2

Defendant requests an order allowing a second motion for summary judgment on the ground

that in the order denying the motion for reconsideration, the Court stated that the evidence and

arguments presented in defendant’s objections to the Magistrate’s Findings and Recommendations

would not be considered because “a new theory cannot properly be raised in objections to Findings

and Recommendations.” Defendant represents that the second motion for summary judgment would

reassert arguments already put forth by defendant and rejected by this Court but will present new

arguments and evidence.

Defendant has not demonstrated good cause for his request. This action has been pending

since 1996 and the parties have been granted numerous extensions of the deadlines, including the

deadline to file dispositive motions. The Court is mindful of the goals of summary judgment.

However, in this case, defendant’s motion for summary judgment has been denied, reconsidered and

denied again and neither defendant’s motion nor prior objections convince the Court that a second

motion for summary judgment would eliminate the need for a trial in this case. It is in the best

interests of all parties that this case now proceed to trial without further delay. 

Defendants request to file a second motion for summary judgment is therefore DENIED. 

 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: January 16, 2008 /s/ Dennis L. Beck 

3c0h UNI j8 TED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:96-cv-05576-AWI -DLB Document 150 Filed 01/16/08 Page 2 of 2