Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_10-cv-00713/USCOURTS-caed-1_10-cv-00713-16/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

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

JOHN T. MISKO,

Plaintiff,

 v.

WILLIAM SULLIVAN, et al.,

 Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

1:10-cv-00713-LJO-BAM (PC)

ORDER REGARDING PLAINTIFF’S 

REQUEST FOR DELAY OF 

DEFENDANT’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT

(ECF No. 75)

ORDER DIRECTING DEFENDANT TO 

SERVE PLAINTIFF WITH A CORRECTED 

COPY OF THE CROSS-MOTION FOR 

SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND FILE

PROOF OF SERVICE WITHIN SEVEN (7) 

DAYS

)

)

Plaintiff John T. Misko (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma 

pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action currently proceeds 

against Defendant Williams for deliberate indifference in violation of the Eighth Amendment. 

On February 20, 2015, the Court extended the dispositive motion deadline to April 24, 

2015. (ECF No. 70.)

On February 23, 2015, Plaintiff filed a dispositive motion. (ECF No. 71.) Defendants 

opposed the motion on April 27, 2015. (ECF No. 74.)

///

///

Case 1:10-cv-00713-LJO-BAM Document 77 Filed 05/27/15 Page 1 of 3
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

On April 24, 2015, Defendant Williams filed a cross-motion for summary judgment. Fed. 

R. Civ. P. 56. Although Plaintiff was provided with notice of the requirements for opposing a 

motion for summary judgment, he failed to timely file an opposition. 

On May 22, 2015, the Court issued an order requiring Plaintiff to file an opposition or 

statement of non-opposition to Defendant’s cross-motion for summary judgment within twentyon (21) days. (ECF No. 76.) On the same date, Plaintiff filed the instant motion requesting that 

the Court either deny Defendant’s motion for summary or stay it until he can obtain the 

necessary affidavits and other evidence. Plaintiff also reports that Defendant failed to send him 

the correct first page of the memorandum of points and authorities. (ECF No. 75.) 

Plaintiff’s request for a stay of Defendant’s cross-motion for summary judgment to obtain 

affidavits and evidence is governed by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(d). 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). In seeking relief under Rule 56(d), 

Plaintiff bears the burden of specifically identifying relevant information, where there is some 

basis for believing that the information actually exists, and demonstrating that the evidence 

sought actually exists and that it would prevent summary judgment. Blough v. Holland Realty, 

Inc., 574 F.3d 1084, 1091 n.5 (9th Cir. 2009) (quotation marks and citation omitted); Getz v. 

Boeing Co., 654 F.3d 852, 867-68 (9th Cir. 2011); Tatum v. City and County of San Francisco, 

441 F.3d 1090, 1100-01 (9th Cir. 2006). Plaintiff has made no such showing and his generalized 

assertions are not sufficient. Therefore, Plaintiff’s motion to defer or deny Defendant’s motion 

for summary in order to obtain affidavits and discovery shall be denied, without prejudice.

Nonetheless, the Court finds a brief extension of time appropriate so that Plaintiff may 

obtain a correct copy of Defendant’s motion for summary judgment and supporting 

memorandum of points and authorities. Defendant will be directed to re-serve Plaintiff with a 

correct copy of the motion and supporting papers and submit proof of service to the Court. 

Case 1:10-cv-00713-LJO-BAM Document 77 Filed 05/27/15 Page 2 of 3
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

Thereafter, Plaintiff’s opposition or statement of non-opposition shall be filed within twenty-one 

(21) days following service of the corrected motion for summary judgment. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s motion to defer or deny Defendant’s motion for summary in order to obtain 

affidavits and discovery is DENIED, without prejudice;

2. Defendant Williams shall serve Plaintiff with a corrected copy of the motion for 

summary judgment and supporting papers within seven (7) days following the date of 

this order and file proof of service with this Court;

3. Within twenty-one (21) days following service of Defendant’s corrected motion for 

summary judgment, Plaintiff shall serve and file his opposition or statement of nonopposition. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 27, 2015 /s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe _

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:10-cv-00713-LJO-BAM Document 77 Filed 05/27/15 Page 3 of 3