Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-02121/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-02121-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 555
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Prison Condition
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MORRIS ROGERS,

Plaintiff,

 v.

A. TUCKER, et al.,

Defendants ________________________________ 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

) 

No. C 05-2121 MMC (PR) 

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND

DENYING IN PART MOTION FOR

STAY/CONTINUANCE

(Docket No. 47)

On May 24, 2005, plaintiff, proceeding pro se and currently incarcerated at Kern

Valley State Prison, filed the above-titled civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against

numerous officials of Salinas Valley State Prison (“SVSP”), where plaintiff was formerly

housed. On October 19, 2005, having found the amended complaint stated cognizable

retaliation claims against eleven individual defendants at SVSP, the Court ordered the

amended complaint served and directed defendants to file a dispositive motion or, in the

alternative, a notice indicating defendants are of the opinion such a motion is not warranted. 

On January 31, 2006, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the complaint pursuant to

Rule 12(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, on the ground that plaintiff had failed to

exhaust his administrative remedies. See Wyatt v. Terhune, 315 F.3d 1108, 1119 (9th Cir.),

cert. denied, 540 U.S. 810 (2003) (providing nonexhaustion claim should be raised in

unenumerated Rule 12(b) motion rather than in motion for summary judgment). Plaintiff

thereafter filed an opposition, as well as a request for judicial notice, and defendants filed a

reply. On August 23, 2006, the Court gave plaintiff “notice of his opportunity to develop a

record,” see Wyatt, 315 F.3d at 1120 n.14, and afforded him an additional 21 days in which

to file supplemental opposition should he so choose. On September 8, 2006, plaintiff filed a

Case 3:05-cv-02121-MMC Document 49 Filed 11/08/06 Page 1 of 2
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

motion for a 120-day stay under Rule 56(f) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and on

September 12, 2006, defendants filed an opposition thereto.

Rule 56(f) permits a court to order a continuance of a motion for summary judgment

where the party opposing summary judgment seeks to conduct further discovery. This rule,

by its own terms, applies to summary judgment motions under Rule 56, not to motions to

dismiss under Rule 12(b). Further, almost two years have elapsed between the court’s order

allowing the parties to conduct discovery (see Order of Service, filed October 19, 2005, at

6:12-14), and the filing of the instant motion for an extension; additionally, over seven

months have passed since the filing of defendants’ motion to dismiss, by which plaintiff was

put on notice of the need for any additional discovery as to the specific issue of exhaustion,

and the filing of the instant motion. Finally, plaintiff has made no particularized showing as

to the discovery he seeks. Nevertheless, the Court notes that defendants’ citation to Wyatt in

their motion to dismiss did not provide as complete a notice as the notice subsequently

provided by the Court, and plaintiff had only 21 days from the time of the Court’s notice in

which to file his supplemental opposition. 

 Accordingly, good cause appearing, plaintiff is hereby GRANTED an extension of

time, to and including sixty (60) days from the date this order is filed, in which to file a

supplemental opposition to defendants’ motion. If plaintiff files a supplemental opposition,

defendants shall file a supplemental reply within 14 days of the date the supplemental

opposition is filed. 

This order terminates Docket No. 47.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: November 8, 2006 _________________________

MAXINE M. CHESNEY

United States District Judge

Case 3:05-cv-02121-MMC Document 49 Filed 11/08/06 Page 2 of 2