Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_14-cv-00166/USCOURTS-cand-5_14-cv-00166-15/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 

Northern District of Californi

a

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

HOOMAN PANAH, an individual, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

STATE OF CALIFORNIA DEPT. OF 

CORRECTIONS AND 

REHABILITATION, et al., 

 Defendants. 

Case No. 14-00166 BLF (PR) 

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR 

TEMPORARY RESTRAINING 

ORDER; GRANTING MOTION FOR 

EXTENSION OF TIME TO 

RESPOND TO DISCOVERY; 

GRANTING MOTION FOR LEAVE 

TO FILE SUCCESSIVE 

DISPOSITIVE MOTIONS; 

GRANTING MOTION TO DEFER 

BRIEFING ON PLAINTIFF’S 

MOTION TO COMPEL AND 

STAYING MOTION 

 

(Docket Nos. 159, 164, 165, 167) 

Plaintiff, an inmate on death row at San Quentin State Prison (“SQSP”) proceeding 

pro se, filed a second amended complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging 

unconstitutional acts by SQSP correctional officers. The Court found several of Plaintiff’s 

claims cognizable, and scheduled briefing on the matter. (Docket No. 69.) On October 4, 

2019, the Court granted Defendants Anderson, Odom, and Welton’s motion to compel 

Plaintiff’s response to their first set of written discovery, (Docket No. 135). and directed 

them to re-serve the request on Plaintiff. (Docket No. 148.) Plaintiff was advised to 

respond to Defendants’ within thirty days of service. (Id. at 2.) The Court thereafter 

granted Plaintiff’s request for copies, (Docket Nos. 151, 153), and Defendants filed notice 

of compliance with the court order in re-serving on Plaintiff all their interrogatories and 

requests for productions of documents along with copies of Plaintiff’s various filings in 

Case 5:14-cv-00166-BLF Document 168 Filed 02/20/20 Page 1 of 5
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 

United States District Court 

Northern District of Californi

a

this matter, i.e., his original complaint, first amended complaint, second amended 

complaint, and supplement thereto. (Docket No. 154.) The Court addresses several 

pending motions in this matter below. 

DISCUSSION 

I. Pending Motions 

Plaintiff has filed another motion to compel discovery and for the Court to review 

documents previously filed under Docket Nos. 122, 123, 124, 138, 139, and 140, in 

considering his motion. (Docket No. 158.) Plaintiff also filed a motion for a temporary 

restraining order, (Docket No. 159), to which Defendants filed a response, (Docket No. 

160). Furthermore, Defendants have filed notice that counsel received service of 

Plaintiff’s request, dated December 11, 2019, for an extension of time to comply with the 

Court’s discovery order; Plaintiff requests until February 17, 2020, to complete his 

response to Defendants’ discovery. (Docket No. 161.) At the same time, Defendants filed 

a motion for sanctions against Plaintiff. (Docket No. 162.) More recently, Plaintiff has 

filed a motion for extension of time to respond to discovery, and additional time to respond 

to Defendants’ motion for sanctions. (Docket No. 167, 166.) Defendants also filed a 

motion to dismiss several of Plaintiff’s claims, along with a motion for leave to file 

successive dispositive motions. (Docket Nos. 163, 164.) Lastly, Defendants move to defer 

briefing on Plaintiff’s motion to compel pending the Court’s ruling on their motion for 

sanctions and motion to dismiss. (Docket No. 165.) 

A. Motion for Temporary Restraining Order 

Plaintiff moves for a temporary restraining order against the Warden of SQSP and 

its employees “to cease opening Panah’s incoming and outgoing confidential legal mail 

outside of [his] presence” and to stop delays in his confidential mail and prevent thefts 

thereof. (Docket No. 159.) 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65 sets forth the procedure for issuance of a 

Case 5:14-cv-00166-BLF Document 168 Filed 02/20/20 Page 2 of 5
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 

United States District Court 

Northern District of Californi

a

preliminary injunction or temporary restraining order (“TRO”). “A preliminary injunction 

is ‘an extraordinary and drastic remedy, one that should not be granted unless the movant, 

by a clear showing, carries the burden of persuasion.’” Lopez v. Brewer, et al., 680 F.3d 

1068, 1072 (9th Cir. 2012) (citation omitted) (emphasis in original). The standard for 

issuing a TRO is similar to that required for a preliminary injunction. See Los Angeles 

Unified Sch. Dist. v. United States Dist. Court, 650 F.2d 1004, 1008 (9th Cir. 1981) 

(Ferguson, J., dissenting). “A plaintiff seeking a preliminary injunction must establish that 

he is likely to succeed on the merits, that he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the 

absence of preliminary relief, that the balance of equities tips in his favor, and that an 

injunction is in the public interest.” Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 

555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008). Here, Plaintiff has failed to establish any of the above factors for 

issuance of a TRO. In particular, Plaintiff has not established likelihood of success on the 

merits in the face of Defendants having filed a motion to dismiss several of Plaintiff’s 

claims as untimely which appears to be meritorious. (Docket No. 163.) Accordingly, the 

motion for a TRO is DENIED. 

B. Motion for Leave to File Successive Dispositive Motions 

Defendants filed a motion to dismiss several of Plaintiff’s claims under Federal 

Rule 12(b)(6), (Docket No. 163), along with a concurrent motion for leave to file 

successive dispositive motions to address the remaining claims, (Docket No. 164). 

Defendants point to Plaintiff’s lack of compliance with their discovery requests as a 

hindrance to their ability to file a single dispositive motion addressing all the claims. 

(Docket No. 164 at 3.) Defendants have shown good cause for their desire to move 

forward with procedural defenses on some of the claims, and to be permitted to move for 

summary judgment on the remainder of Plaintiff’s claim. Accordingly, their motion for 

leave to file successive dispositive motions is GRANTED. 

Briefing on Defendants’ motion to dismiss shall proceed as set forth below. See 

infra at 5.

Case 5:14-cv-00166-BLF Document 168 Filed 02/20/20 Page 3 of 5
4 

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 

Northern District of Californi

a

C. Motion for Sanctions and Motion for Extension of Time 

Defendants filed a motion for sanctions against Plaintiff by dismissal of all his 

claims against them based on Plaintiff’s refusal to respond to basic contention discovery 

and the Court’s multiple orders compelling the same. (Docket No. 162.) More recently, 

Plaintiff has filed a motion for extension of time to respond to discovery, and additional 

time to respond to Defendants’ motion for sanctions. (Docket No. 167, 166.) 

Specifically, Plaintiff requests until March 31, 2020, to comply with discovery. 

(Docket No. 167.) Good cause appearing, the motion is GRANTED. This is the final

extension of time to comply with Defendants’ discovery requests that will be granted to 

Plaintiff. No further requests shall be considered or granted. 

In addition, Plaintiff may file an opposition to Defendants’ motion for sanctions no 

later than fourteen (14) days from the date this order is filed. 

Plaintiff is advised that should he fail to comply with Defendants’ discovery 

requests by March 31, 2020, the Court will consider granting Defendants’ motion for 

sanctions and dismiss any remaining claims after Defendants’ motion to dismiss has been 

decided. 

D. Motion to Defer Briefing on Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel 

Defendants request the Court defer briefing on Plaintiff’s motion to compel until 

after the Court decides their motion for terminating sanctions and motion to dismiss. 

(Docket No. 165.) Defendants assert that decisions on these pending motions may 

terminate the litigation altogether or substantially narrow the Defendants, the claims at 

issue, and the scope of discovery. (Id. at 3-4.) Defendants also point to Plaintiff’s failure 

to respond to their basis contention discovery and the Court’s multiple orders compelling 

the same. (Id. at 4.) The Court finds Defendants have satisfied the requirements for a 

motion to change time under Local Rule 6-3, and that deferring briefing on Plaintiff’s 

motion to compel is warranted under these circumstances. N.D. Cal. Civ. Pr. 6-3(a)-(d). 

Plaintiff has filed no opposition. Accordingly, Defendants’ motion to defer briefing is 

Case 5:14-cv-00166-BLF Document 168 Filed 02/20/20 Page 4 of 5
5 

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 

Northern District of Californi

a

GRANTED. Briefing on Plaintiff’s motion to compel is hereby STAYED until the Court 

sets forth a new briefing schedule, if appropriate, at a later time. 

CONCLUSION 

For the foregoing reasons, the Court orders as follows: 

1. Plaintiff’s motion for a temporary restraining order is DENIED. (Docket 

No. 159.) 

2. Defendants’ motion for leave to file successive dispositive motions is 

GRANTED. (Docket No. 164.) 

3. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss on February 5, 2020. (Docket No. 

163.) Accordingly, Plaintiff’s opposition to Defendants’ motion to dismiss is due no later 

than twenty-eight (28) days from that date, i.e., by March 4, 2020. (Docket No. 69 at 

13.) Defendants shall file a reply brief no later than fourteen (14) days after Plaintiff’s 

opposition is filed. 

4. Plaintiff’s request for an extension of time until March 31, 2020, to comply 

with discovery is GRANTED. (Docket No. 167.) This is a final extension of time, and 

no further requests shall be considered or granted. 

Plaintiff may file an opposition to Defendants’ motion for sanctions no later than 

fourteen (14) days from the date this order is filed. 

5. Defendants’ motion to defer briefing on Plaintiff’s motion to compel is 

GRANTED. (Docket No. 165.) The Clerk shall STAY the motion to compel, (Docket 

No. 158), until the Court sets forth a new briefing schedule. 

This order terminates Docket Nos. 159, 164, 165, and 167. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: _____________________ ________________________ 

BETH LABSON FREEMAN 

United States District Judge 

Order Addressing Pending Motions

PRO-SE\BLF\CR.14\00166Panah_mots

Case 5:14-cv-00166-BLF Document 168 Filed 02/20/20 Page 5 of 5