Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-00782/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-00782-3/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

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LANCE WILLIAMS,

Plaintiff,

v.

ERIC ARNOLD, et al.,

Defendant.

No. 2:15-cv-0782 DB P

ORDER

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with a civil rights 

action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Before the court is plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration of an 

order denying his request to correspond with an inmate witness. Plaintiff contends that he needs 

to correspond with the inmate witness to obtain an affidavit to oppose defendants’ summary 

judgment motion. Also before the court is defendants’ motion to modify the Discovery and 

Scheduling Order to permit further discovery and pretrial motions if defendants' pending motion 

for summary judgment is denied. 

Background

Plaintiff initiated this action with a complaint signed on April 8, 2015 and filed here on 

April 10, 2015. (ECF No. 1.) The case is proceeding on plaintiff’s first amended complaint filed 

on October 28, 2015. (ECF No. 14.) Therein, plaintiff alleges Eighth Amendment violations by

////

Case 2:15-cv-00782-JAM-DB Document 34 Filed 12/30/16 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

defendant Romero for excessive force and by defendants Romero, Abarra, and La for deliberate 

indifference to plaintiff’s medical needs. 

After defendants answered the complaint, the court issued a Discovery and Scheduling 

Order setting a November 18, 2016 deadline for discovery and a February 10, 2017 deadline for 

pretrial motions. (ECF No. 23.) On July 29, 2016, defendants moved for summary judgment. 

(ECF No. 24.) Defendants argue that plaintiff failed to exhaust his administrative remedies 

before filing this action. 

In a motion filed August 10, 2016, plaintiff sought an order allowing him to have limited 

correspondence with an inmate witness. (ECF No. 27.) On August 18, 2016, the court denied the 

motion because plaintiff failed to show the affidavit(s) he sought were relevant to the issues

raised by defendants' motion for summary judgment. (ECF No. 29.) 

In a motion filed September 2, 2016, plaintiff seeks reconsideration of the court’s August 

18 order. (ECF No. 30.) Since then, plaintiff filed an opposition to defendants’ summary 

judgment motion and defendants filed a reply. (ECF Nos. 31, 32.) On November 14, 2016, 

defendants moved to modify the Discovery and Scheduling Order issued on July 27, 2016. (ECF 

No. 33.) 

Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration

The court will reconsider a ruling on a motion upon a showing that “new or different facts 

or circumstances are claimed to exist which did not exist or were not shown upon such prior 

motion, or what other grounds exist for the motion; and . . . why the facts or circumstances were 

not shown at the time of the prior motion.” E.D. Cal. R. 230(j). Plaintiff now alleges that inmate 

witness Liggins, with whom he seeks to communicate, “would assert that he assisted, counseled 

plaintiff in the exhaustion process due to plaintiff’s mental health disabilities . . . [and] would 

assert why no 3rd level decision was rendered on initial 602 appeal and why complaint was filed 

when it was.” (ECF No. 30 at 1.) According to plaintiff, Liggins’ affidavit is necessary to show 

why plaintiff should be excused from the exhaustion requirement. 

Plaintiff will only be excused from the exhaustion requirement if he can show the 

appropriate grievance procedures were “unavailable” to him. See Ross v. Blake, 136 S. Ct. 1850, 

Case 2:15-cv-00782-JAM-DB Document 34 Filed 12/30/16 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

1859-60 (2016). Plaintiff does not show why inmate Liggins has more knowledge about the 

availability of the grievance and appeal procedures. In fact, in plaintiff’s opposition to the 

summary judgment motion, plaintiff states that Liggins only helped him file the original 602 

appeal. (ECF No. 31 at 3.) Plaintiff makes no assertion in the opposition that Liggins was 

involved in the other aspects of plaintiff’s grievance process or that plaintiff himself was unaware 

of what happened. For these reasons, the court finds plaintiff has failed to show a need to 

communicate with Liggins to obtain his affidavit to oppose the summary judgment motion. 

Defendants' Motion to Modify Discovery and Scheduling Order

On November 14, 2016, defendants filed a motion to modify the Discovery and 

Scheduling Order to permit additional discovery and pretrial motions after a decision on the 

pending motion for summary judgment. Defendants argue that they limited their summary 

judgment motion to exhaustion issues in the interests of most efficiently resolving this action. 

The court agrees that if defendants’ motion for summary judgment is denied, the parties should be 

permitted further discovery and pretrial motions on the substance of plaintiff’s complaint. 

Accordingly, and good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED as follows:

1. Plaintiff’s September 2, 2016 motion for reconsideration (ECF No. 30) is denied; and

2. Defendants’ November 14, 2016 motion to modify the Discovery and Scheduling 

Order is granted. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4). If defendants' summary judgment 

motion is denied, the court will set new deadlines for discovery and pretrial motions. 

Dated: December 29, 2016

DLB:9

DLB1/prisoner-civil rights/will0782.recon

Case 2:15-cv-00782-JAM-DB Document 34 Filed 12/30/16 Page 3 of 3