Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_03-cv-01820/USCOURTS-caed-2_03-cv-01820-35/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOHN R. JORDAN, Jr.,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-03-1820 LKK KJM P

vs.

CAL A. TERHUNE, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

Plaintiff has filed his second and third request for an extension of time to file and

serve an opposition to defendant Rohlfing’s November 30, 2007 motion for summary judgment. 

Good cause appearing, the request will be granted. 

Plaintiff has also filed several requests for an extension of time to file and serve

an opposition to the motion for summary judgment and statement of undisputed facts filed by

defendants J. Boitano, D. J. Brown, T. Cobb, J. Cox, R Dreith, J. Eder, T. Felker, B Fleming, K.

McCraw, D. McGuire, S. Platt, D. Vanderville, R Wong, M. Wright, R. Miranda, S. Armoskus

and K. Kopec. Good cause appearing, these requests will be granted.

Finally, on January 2 and January 9, 2008 plaintiff filed motions to reopen

discovery in order to secure documents necessary to oppose summary judgment. Defendants

have opposed these motions.

/////

Case 2:03-cv-01820-LKK-CKD Document 212 Filed 01/18/08 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

Rule 56(f) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure permits a court to deny or

continue determination of a motion for summary judgment “should it appear from the affidavits 

of a party opposing the motion that the party cannot for reasons stated present by affidavit facts

essential to justify the party’s opposition.” 

The Ninth Circuit has held: 

References in memoranda and declarations to a need for discovery

do not qualify as motions under Rule 56(f). Rule 56(f) requires

affidavits setting forth the particular facts expected from the

movant’s discovery. Failure to comply with the requirements of

Rule 56(f) is a proper ground for denying discovery and

proceeding to summary judgment.

Further, the movant cannot complain if it fails to pursue discovery

diligently before summary judgment.

Brae Transp., Inc. v. Coopers & Lybrand, 790 F.2d 1439, 1443 (9th Cir. 1986). Similarly, an

implicit motion for more time to conduct discovery will not bar summary judgment. State of

California v. Campbell, 138 F.3d 772, 779 (9th Cir. 1998); King v. Atiyeh, 814 F.2d 565, 567

(9th Cir. 1987) (pro se plaintiffs still must follow rules of procedure). 

Although plaintiff suggests the need for more discovery in his motion, which he

has signed under the penalty of perjury, he has not clearly described the material he seeks to

develop nor suggested how the information will bolster his opposition to the motion for

summary judgment. See Crofton v. Roe, 170 F.3d 957, 961 (9th Cir. 1999). Accordingly,

plaintiff’s request for further discovery will be denied.

 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff's January 2 (Docket Nos. 198, 199 & 201) and January 9, 2008

(Docket Nos. 207 & 209) requests for extensions of time are granted.

2. Plaintiff is granted sixty days from the date of this order in which to file and

serve an opposition to defendant Rohlfing’s November 30, 2007 motion for summary judgment 

and the remaining defendants’ November 30, 2007 motion for summary judgment and statement

of undisputed facts. No further extensions of time will be granted.

Case 2:03-cv-01820-LKK-CKD Document 212 Filed 01/18/08 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. Plaintiff’s January 2 and January 9, 2008 requests (Docket Nos. 200 & 208) to

reopen discovery are denied. 

DATED: January 17, 2008. 

2/ke

jord1820.36sec(2)

Case 2:03-cv-01820-LKK-CKD Document 212 Filed 01/18/08 Page 3 of 3