Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-01301/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-01301-7/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

VICTOR HUGO MARTINEZ,

Plaintiff,

v.

C. LAWLESS, et al.,

Defendants.

_____________________________________/

Case No. 1:12-cv-01301-LJO-SKO (PC)

ORDER DENYING RULE 56(D) MOTION

AND REQUIRING PLAINTIFF TO FILE 

RESPONSE TO MOTION FOR SUMMARY 

JUDGMENT WITHIN TWENTY-ONE 

DAYS

(Docs. 47-49)

I. Procedural Background

Plaintiff Victor Hugo Martinez (“Plaintiff”), a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in 

forma pauperis, filed this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on August 9, 2012. This 

action is proceeding against Defendants Morse, Herrera, Chamberlin, and Molina (“Defendants”) 

for violating Plaintiff’s rights under the Eighth Amendment of the United States Constitution. 

Plaintiff alleges that he was beaten and sprayed with pepper spray on January 6, 2011, at Kern 

Valley State Prison, without justification. Plaintiff also alleges that the involved officers failed to 

protect him from the physical harm. 

On April 6, 2015, Defendants filed a motion for partial summary judgment. Fed. R. Civ. 

P. 56. Plaintiff was first ordered to file an opposition or a statement of non-opposition to the 

motion on June 15, 2015. On September 29, 2015, after Plaintiff had twice been granted 

extensions of time to file his response to the motion, the Court ordered Plaintiff to file a response 

Case 1:12-cv-01301-LJO-SKO Document 50 Filed 12/28/15 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

2

within thirty days. Plaintiff was warned that no further extensions of time would be granted and if 

he failed to respond to the motion, it would be deemed submitted. Local Rule 230(l). 

On November 16, 2015, Plaintiff filed a notice stating that he mailed a response and 

request for a continuance pursuant to Rule 56(d) on October 25, 2015. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(d). The 

filing was returned to him on November 9, 2015, due to an error he attributes to the law librarian, 

and he re-sent the filing. On November 23, 2015, the Court received and filed Plaintiff’s request 

for a denial or continuance pursuant to Rule 56(d) and a supporting declaration. Defendants did 

not file a response. Local Rule 230(l).

II. Discussion

Rule 56(d) provides that “[i]f a nonmovant shows by affidavit or declaration that, for 

specified reasons, it cannot present facts essential to justify its opposition, the court may: (1) defer 

considering the motion or deny it; (2) allow time to obtain affidavits or declarations or to take 

discovery; or (3) issue any other appropriate order.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(d). However, the deadline 

for the completion of all discovery was December 17, 2014. (Doc. 28.) Given that the discovery 

deadline expired more than one year ago, consideration of Plaintiff’s Rule 56(d) motion on the 

merits would require him, as an initial matter, to show good cause to modify the scheduling order

and reopen discovery. Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4). 

Modification of the pretrial scheduling order requires a showing of good cause. Id. “A

scheduling order is not a frivolous piece of paper, idly entered,” Johnson v. Mammoth 

Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 610 (9th Cir. 1992) (internal quotation marks and citation 

omitted), and “[t]he schedule may [only] be modified ‘if it cannot reasonably be met despite the 

diligence of the party seeking the extension,’” Zivkovic v. Southern California Edison Co., 302 

F.3d 1080, 1087 (9th Cir. 2002) (quoting Johnson, 975 F.2d at 609). “Although the existence or 

degree of prejudice to the party opposing the modification might supply additional reasons to deny 

a motion, the focus of the inquiry is upon the moving party’s reasons for seeking the 

modification.” Johnson, 975 F.2d at 609. “If the party seeking the modification ‘was not diligent, 

the inquiry should end’ and the motion to modify should not be granted.” Zivkovic, 302 F.3d at 

1087 (quoting Johnson, 975 F.2d at 609). In this case, there has been no showing of due diligence 

Case 1:12-cv-01301-LJO-SKO Document 50 Filed 12/28/15 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

3

and therefore, Plaintiff is not entitled to a modification of the scheduling order to reopen 

discovery. As a result, Plaintiff may not rely on Rule 56(d) as a means to relieve him from having 

to respond to Defendants’ motion. 

III. Order

Based on the foregoing, the Court HEREBY ORDERS as follows:

1. Plaintiff’s Rule 56(d) motion is DENIED, with prejudice;

2. Given the leniency which must be afforded pro se litigants and the adverse 

resolution of Plaintiff’s pending Rule 56(d) motion, Plaintiff has twenty-one (21) 

days to file a response to Defendants’ motion for summary judgment; and

3. Defendants’ motion for summary judgment will be submitted on the record 

pursuant to Local Rule 230(l) within twenty-one days or upon receipt of Plaintiff’s 

response, whichever occurs earlier. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 24, 2015 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:12-cv-01301-LJO-SKO Document 50 Filed 12/28/15 Page 3 of 3