Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_08-cv-02767/USCOURTS-caed-2_08-cv-02767-7/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MICHAEL AARON JAYNE, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

TOM BOSENKO, et al., 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No. 2:08-cv-2767-MSB

ORDER

Michael Aaron Jayne, who is confined in the Shasta County Jail in Redding,

California, filed a pro se complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (Dkt. # 1). Jayne alleges

that Shasta County Defendants have engaged in “an active conspiracy to violate [his]

civil rights and to harass and torture” him while he was housed at the Shasta County

Jail as a pretrial detainee. (Dkt. #1 at 3). This order responds to several motions filed

by Mr. Jayne: (1) Jayne’s two motions for an extension of time to respond to

Defendants’ motions for summary judgment (Dkts. #98 & 102); (2) Jayne’s motions

to dismiss Defendants and toll the statute of limitations (Dkts. #84 & 95); (3) and

Jayne’s motion to compel discovery of Randy Abney’s handwritten statement (Dkt.

#104). 

 I. Jayne’s Motions for an Extension of Time to Respond to Defendants’

Motions for Summary Judgment (Dkts. #98, 102 & 109) 

All Defendants in this action except Randy Abney have filed motions for

summary judgment. (Dkts. #90 & 95). Jayne has filed two motions for an extension

Case 2:08-cv-02767-TLN-EFB Document 111 Filed 04/04/11 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

27

28

of time to respond to the Defendants’ motions for summary judgment. (Dkts. #98,

102 & 109). In light of Jayne’s pro se status, the Court will grant Jayne an extension

until May 20, 2011 to respond to Defendants’ motions for summary judgment. See

Abassi v. I.N.S., 305 F.3d 1028, 1032 (9th Cir. 2002) (“[W]e have consistently held

that procedural requirements should be more liberally construed for pro se litigants.”). 

The Court is extremely unlikely to grant future extensions of this deadline. 

II. Jayne’s Motions to Dismiss Defendants and Toll the Statute of Limitations

(Dkts. #84 & 95)

Jayne filed two motions to dismiss certain claims and stay the statute of

limitations. (Dkts. #84 & 95). The first motion sought to dismiss without prejudice

Defendant Randy Abney (Dkt. #84), while the second motion asked to dismiss

without prejudice the claims against all Defendants. (Dkt. #95). In both motions,

Jayne also requested that the Court stay the statute of limitations until Jayne is

released from prison. In his subsequent filings, however, Jayne seemed to indicate

that he wished to withdraw the motions to dismiss. (See Dkt. #102 at 1). Accordingly,

Jayne’s motions to dismiss (Dkts. #84 & 95) are denied as moot. 

If the Court misunderstood Jayne’s intentions, Jayne may renew his motions to

dismiss. Jayne should be aware, however, that the Court is very unlikely to stay the

statute of limitations. Therefore, if Jayne renews his motion to dismiss one or all

Defendants, he should indicate whether he would want to dismiss Defendant(s) if the

Court denies his request to toll the statute of limitations. 

III. Jayne’s Motion to Compel Discovery of Randy Abney’s Handwritten

Statement (Dkt. #104)

On February 28, 2011, Jayne filed a motion to compel discovery of a

handwritten statement by Randy Abney, which Jayne asserts is material to one of his

claims. (Dkt. #104). In opposing Jayne’s motion, Defendants argue that “[t]here is

not, and never has been, a handwritten report such as plaintiff describes.” (Dkt. #105

at 7). But Defendants have not sufficiently substantiated this assertion. Although

- 2 -

Case 2:08-cv-02767-TLN-EFB Document 111 Filed 04/04/11 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

27

28

Jose Gonzales submitted a declaration averring that the “internal affairs file . . . does

not contain and has never contained handwritten reports from Mr. Abney” (Gonzales

Decl. at 2), the declaration says nothing about whether the statement is located

elsewhere. Thus, the Gonzales declaration is insufficient to prove that Defendants

cannot produce Randy Abney’s handwritten statement. 

In light of the foregoing, Jayne’s motion to compel (Dkt. #104) is granted, and 

no later than April 15, 2011, Defendants shall either produce Randy Abney’s

handwritten statement to Jayne or submit evidence to demonstrate that they are unable

to produce any such handwritten statement.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:

(1) Jayne’s requests for an extension of time to respond to Defendants’ motions

for summary judgment (Dkts. #98, 102 & 109) are granted. Jayne shall respond to

Defendants’ motions for summary judgment no later than May 20, 2011. The Court

is extremely unlikely to grant future extensions of this deadline.

(2) Jayne’s motions to dismiss Defendants and stay the statute of limitations

(Dkts. #84 & 95) are denied as moot. 

(3) Jayne’s Motion to Compel Discovery of Randy Abney’s Handwritten

Statement (Dkt. #104) is granted. No later than April 15, 2011, Defendants shall

either produce Randy Abney’s handwritten statement to Jayne or submit sufficient

evidence to the Court demonstrating why they cannot do so.

 DATED this 1st day of April, 2011.

/s/ Marsha S. Berzon 

MARSHA S. BERZON

United States Circuit Judge, sitting by designation

- 3 -

Case 2:08-cv-02767-TLN-EFB Document 111 Filed 04/04/11 Page 3 of 3