Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-01811/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-01811-1/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOHN E. JAMES, 

Plaintiff,

 v.

DONALD C. POMPAN, M.D., ET AL., 

Defendants. _________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C 05-1811 JSW (PR)

ORDER REGARDING

PLAINTIFF’S MOTIONS FOR

“CONTINUANCE” AND

SEEKING COPY OF LOCAL

RULES

(Docket nos. 20, 21)

Plaintiff, a prisoner of the State of California currently incarcerated at Calipatria

State Prison, filed this pro se civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 regarding

medical treatment he received at Salinas Valley State Prison. On December 23, 2005,

this Court ordered service of the complaint on Defendants. In addition, the Court

provided therein that “(d)iscovery may be taken in accordance with the Federal Rules of

Civil Procedure. No further Court order under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(a)(2)

or Local Rule 16 is required before the parties may conduct discovery.” (Docket no. 5,

page 7). Thereafter, on April 24, 2006, Defendants moved for summary judgment, as set

forth in this Court’s order of service (docket no. 16).

Plaintiff now moves for a “continuance” of this matter until completion of

discovery pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(f). In Plaintiff’s motion, he states that the Court

“has not yet even ordered/scheduled a (d)iscovery beginning, nor deadline.” Plaintiff

indicates that his ability to respond to the motion is limited, as he has not had an

Case 3:05-cv-01811-JSW Document 23 Filed 05/31/06 Page 1 of 2
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

opportunity to conduct discovery. However, more than six months ago, the Court

ordered the parties to commence discovery and provided that no further Court order was

required prior to the parties engaging in discovery. There is and has been no impediment

to Plaintiff engaging in discovery. Moreover, Plaintiff is reminded that discovery

matters are to be conducted between the parties and, absent a need for intervention,

should not be served on the Court.

Because Plaintiff is proceeding pro se and it is apparent that he may have

misunderstood the Court’s earlier order, Plaintiff’s motion will be partially GRANTED

and the Court will provide Plaintiff with 90 days in which to respond to the motion

(docket no. 20). Plaintiff must file his opposition on or before 90 days from the date of

this order. If Plaintiff requires further extension of time to respond, his motion must

clearly set out reasons why he has not undertaken sufficient discovery to oppose the

motion and what materials he asserts are currently unavailable to him and necessary for

his opposition. Plaintiff’s motion for a copy of the local rules is also GRANTED, as this

Court has provided Plaintiff with a copy under separate cover (docket no. 21). 

 IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: May 31, 2006

 

JEFFREY S. WHITE

United States District Judge

Case 3:05-cv-01811-JSW Document 23 Filed 05/31/06 Page 2 of 2