Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_12-cv-01524/USCOURTS-azd-2_12-cv-01524-2/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

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

John Doneld Womack, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

GEO Group Incorporated,

Defendant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-12-1524-PHX-SRB (LOA)

ORDER

 This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motion to Extend Discovery Deadlines,

Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Discovery, and Defendant’s Motion to Extend Dispositive Motion

Deadline. (Docs. 66, 67 and 70) Defendant has filed a Response to Plaintiff’s Motion to

Compel. (Doc. 72) No other responses or replies have been filed.

I. Background

Plaintiff initiated this action by filing a Civil Rights Complaint by a Prisoner on July 16,

2012. (Doc. 1) At the time he filed this action, Plaintiff was an inmate confined in the Central

Arizona Correctional Facility (“CACF”), a private correctional facility owned and operated by

Defendant GEO Group (“GEO”), which has contracted with the State of Arizona to incarcerate

prisoners. 

In the First Amended Complaint, Plaintiff alleges that, since approximately 2009, GEO

has maintained the prison dorms in which Plaintiff was housed with “constant illumination” by

four large fluorescent lights which brightly illuminated his living area and bed for “24 hours

a day.” (Doc. 8 at 3-4) He also contends GEO instituted a practice of having its staff members

Case 2:12-cv-01524-SRB Document 78 Filed 10/16/13 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

- 2 -

wake inmates who attempt to block the light by covering their heads at night. (Id. at 5-6)

Plaintiff claims the constant, bright illumination in his cell deprived him of normal sleep and

rest; caused him to suffer headaches, sleep disorders, placed “out of sync” his internal sleep

clock; and rendered him too sleepy and fatigued to participate in basic daily activities. (Id. at

8-9) Plaintiff alleges GEO has violated his Eighth Amendment rights under the United States

Constitution and was deliberately indifferent to Plaintiff’s “basic right to shelter.” (Doc. 8 at

3) See Keenan v. Hall, 83 F.3d 1083, 1088, 1090-91 (9th Cir. 1996) (Because “[t]here is no

legitimate penological justification for . . . constant illumination[,]” a triable issue of fact

existed on a continuous lighting claim where prisoner was subjected to two large fluorescent

lights that were kept on 24 hours a day for six months, and the prisoner claimed that the lighting

caused him grave sleeping problems and other mental and psychological problems.”) (citations

and internal quotation marks omitted), opinion amended on denial of rehearing by 135 F.3d

1318 (9th Cir. 1998). Plaintiff seeks declaratory and injunctive relief and monetary damages.

II. Plaintiff’s Motion to Extend Discovery Deadlines and Motion to Compel

In the Motion to Compel, Plaintiff seeks an order compelling Defendant to respond to

the interrogatories and requests for production Plaintiff propounded on February 27, 2013. On

September 24, 2013, Defendant filed a Response, stating it submitted its Answers to

Interrogatories and Request for Documents that same day. (Doc. 72) Defendant contends,

therefore, Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel is moot and should be denied. Plaintiff has not filed a

reply and the time to do so has expired. See Local Rules of Civil Procedure (“LRCiv”) 7.2(d)

(stating a party has seven days after service of the response to file a reply). In light of Plaintiff’s

failure to file a reply after receiving Defendant’s discovery responses, the Court assumes

Plaintiff is no longer seeking the Court’s assistance with compelling responses to the discovery

requests. The motion will, therefore, be denied as moot. 

Pursuant to Rule 37(a)(5)(A) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, if the requested

discovery is provided after the motion to compel was filed, “the court must, after giving an

opportunity to be heard, require the party or deponent whose conduct necessitated the motion,

the party or attorney advising that conduct, or both to pay the movant’s reasonable expenses

Case 2:12-cv-01524-SRB Document 78 Filed 10/16/13 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

1

 Defendant’s Motion to Extend Dispositive Motion Deadline was not properly filed in textsearchable format and violates LRCiv 7.1(c), 5.5(b), and the definition of “.pdf,” in the District

Court’s ECF Manual, at I(A), p. 2. 

- 3 -

incurred in making the motion, including attorney’s fees.” Here, because Plaintiff is

representing himself, he is not entitled to attorney’s fees. However, to the extent Plaintiff

incurred reasonable expenses in bringing the motion to compel, he may seek an order requiring

Defendant to pay those expenses. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 37(a)(5)(A).

Regarding Plaintiff’s Motion to Extend Discovery Deadlines, the requested extension

of the discovery deadline appears to based on Defendant’s failure to timely answer Plaintiff’s

discovery requests. As discussed above, however, Defendant has since responded to the

discovery requests. As far as the Court is aware, there are no other outstanding discovery

requests, nor has Plaintiff argued a need to conduct additional discovery. Under these

circumstances, the Court finds no basis to extend the discovery deadline, which expired on July

26, 2013. The motion will be denied.

III. Defendant’s Motion to Extend Dispositive Motion Deadline

Defendant seeks a forty-five day extension of the dispositive motion deadline, which

expired on September 27, 2013.1

 (Doc. 70) Defendant claims the requested extension “is

necessitated by discovery which should lead to a complete record in this action to warrant

summary judgment and avoid trial.” (Id. at 1) Defendant, however, has already filed a summary

judgment motion, which the assigned District Judge denied on August 16, 2013. (Doc. 65) 

The Rule 16 scheduling and discovery order, issued on February 8, 2013, permitted a

motion to dismiss or motion for summary judgment “based solely on a defense of absolute or

qualified immunity,” to be filed by March 22, 2013. (Doc. 27 at 1) Defendant filed a Motion

for Summary Judgment on March 21, 2013. (Doc. 34) The motion, however, was not “based

solely on a defense of absolute or qualified immunity,” and argued Defendant was entitled to

summary judgment on the merits of Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment claim. (Id.) As noted above,

the assigned District Judge disagreed and denied the motion. Defendant now seeks a second bite

at the apple, claiming additional discovery warrants a second summary judgment motion.

Case 2:12-cv-01524-SRB Document 78 Filed 10/16/13 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

- 4 -

The Court disagrees. Defendant chose to file its Motion for Summary Judgment in

March 2013, before discovery had been completed. Moreover, Defendant’s instant motion

contains only vague assertions that additional discovery justifies another summary judgment

motion. Defendant points to nothing specific obtained during discovery that would likely

produce a different result on a second summary motion. The February 8, 2013 scheduling order

gave the parties fair warning that “[t]hese deadlines are real, firm, and, consistent with the

Civil Justice Reform Act of 1990, 28 U.S.C. § 471 et seq., will not be altered except on a

showing of good cause and by leave of the assigned District or Magistrate Judge.” (Doc. 27 at

1) (emphasis in the original) Finally, pursuant to Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975

F.2d 604, 608 (9th Cir. 1992), a district court may modify a pretrial scheduling order upon a

showing of “good cause,” i.e., a case management deadline “[c]annot reasonably be met despite

diligence of the party seeking the extension.” Defendant has not demonstrated the requisite

good cause and diligence for extending the dispositive motion deadline. Although “district

courts have discretion to entertain successive motions for summary judgment,” Hoffman v.

Tonnemacher, 593 F.3d 908, 911 (9th Cir. 2010), this Court finds no basis to allow one here.

Defendant’s motion will be denied.

Accordingly,

 IT IS ORDERED as follows:

1. Plaintiff’s Motion to Extend Discovery Deadlines, doc. 66, is DENIED. 

2. Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Discovery, doc. 67, is DENIED as moot. To the extent

Plaintiff incurred reasonable expenses in bringing the Motion to Compel, he may seek an order

requiring Defendant to pay those expenses. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 37(a)(5)(A).

3. Defendants’ Motion to Extend Dispositive Motion Deadline, doc. 70, is DENIED.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, except as set forth herein, all pleadings, motions,

memoranda, or other filings by Defendant and its counsel shall be created via personal computer

with a word processing application, e.g., Microsoft Word® or Corel WordPerfect®, then

converted to portable document format (.pdf). See LRCiv 7.1(c) and definition of “.pdf”, ECF

Manual, at I(A), p. 2. (“[E]lectronic documents must be converted to .pdf directly from a word

Case 2:12-cv-01524-SRB Document 78 Filed 10/16/13 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

- 5 -

processing program (e.g., Microsoft Word® or Corel WordPerfect®) and must be text

searchable.”). Such filings shall not be printed to paper and then scanned and saved as portable

document format (.pdf). Documents which exist only in paper form, like exhibits or certain

attachments to pleadings or briefings may, however, be scanned from a paper copy and saved

in a portable document format (.pdf).

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that counsel and any unrepresented party must comply

with the Rules of Practice for the United States District Court for the District of Arizona (“Local

Rules” or “LRCiv”). The District’s Rules of Practice may be found on the District Court’s

internet web page at www.azd.uscourts.gov/. All other rules may be found at

www.uscourts.gov/rules/.

Dated this 15th day of October, 2013.

Case 2:12-cv-01524-SRB Document 78 Filed 10/16/13 Page 5 of 5