Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_02-cv-02524/USCOURTS-caed-2_02-cv-02524-0/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

1

 In accordance with the scheduling order filed February 11, 2004, discovery closed in

this action on June 4, 2004. 

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

VERNON WAYNE MCNEAL,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-02-2524 MCE JFM P

vs.

FLEMING, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a civil rights action pursuant to

42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff claims that defendants violated his rights under the Eighth

Amendment by using excessive force against him at High Desert State Prison (High Desert) on

September 10, 2001. Several matters are pending before this court. 

On September 9, 2004, plaintiff filed a motion to reopen discovery.1 In support of

the motion, plaintiff avers that a lock-down at High Desert State Prison interfered with his ability

to complete three separate discovery requests, and that defendants failed to respond in full to the

/////

/////

Case 2:02-cv-02524-TLN-CKD Document 66 Filed 05/09/05 Page 1 of 6
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

2

 On September 2, 2004, plaintiff filed a motion to view the videotape of his excessive

force interview, and on September 7, 2004, plaintiff filed two additional discovery motions. By

order filed September 23, 2004, defendants were directed to respond only to plaintiff’s

September 9, 2004 motion to reopen discovery. In view of the disposition of that motion herein,

plaintiff’s other three motions will be denied as untimely. 

2

incomplete requests that he did serve.2 On September 15, 2004, plaintiff filed a document styled

“Pretrial Motion,” in which he contends, inter alia, that he has not yet had an opportunity to

review or make corrections to his deposition, taken on June 9, 2004, nor an opportunity to view

the videotape made of the excessive force interview that followed the September 10, 2001

incident at issue in this action. 

Pursuant to court order, on November 16, 2004, defendants filed an opposition to

plaintiff’s request to reopen discovery. Defendants contend that (1) they have provided further

responses to the only request for production of documents served by plaintiff; (2) plaintiff has

rejected their good faith offer to allow him to view the videotape of the excessive force

interview; and (3) plaintiff has had enough time to pursue discovery in this case.

On September 16, 2004, defendants filed a motion for summary judgment. 

Plaintiff has responded to that motion with a request pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(f) to delay

disposition of the motion pending completion of additional discovery. Plaintiff contends that he

needs to conduct discovery to learn who had access to his administrative grievances and how

many officers were involved in the September 10, 2001 incident, as well as to obtain evidence to

demonstrate that several materials facts are in dispute in this matter. Plaintiff also claims that he

has been denied adequate access to the prison law library and that has interfered with his ability

to conduct discovery in this matter. 

Rule 56(f) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides:

Should it appear from the affidavits of a party opposing the motion

that the party cannot for reasons stated present by affidavit facts

essential to justify the party's opposition, the court may refuse the

application for judgment or may order a continuance to permit

/////

Case 2:02-cv-02524-TLN-CKD Document 66 Filed 05/09/05 Page 2 of 6
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

3

 affidavits to be obtained or depositions to be taken or discovery to

be had or may make such other order as is just.

Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(f).

As noted above, plaintiff claims that defendants violated his rights under the

Eighth Amendment through use of excessive force. Prison officials have discretion in taking

appropriate action in pursuit of the legitimate penological objectives of discipline and control. 

See Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539, 561-63 (1974). “Where a prison security measure is

undertaken to resolve a disturbance,...the question of whether the measure taken inflicted

unnecessary and wanton pain and suffering [in violation of the Eighth Amendment] turns on

whether force was applied in a good faith effort to maintain or restore discipline or maliciously

and sadistically for the very purpose of causing harm.” Whitley v. Albers, 475 U.S. 312, 320-21

(1986). Force applied in a good faith effort to maintain discipline or restore order does not

violate the Eighth Amendment. Hudson v. McMillian, 112 S.Ct. 995, 998-99 (1992).

In support of their motion for summary judgment, defendants have presented,

inter alia, their affidavits describing the incident, as well as a videotape of the excessive force

interview that followed the incident. The core issue on defendants’ motion for summary

judgment is whether there is a triable issue of material fact over whether defendants used force

against plaintiff “in a good faith effort to maintain or restore discipline,” which is defendants’

view of the incident, or whether defendants used force “maliciously and sadistically for the very

purpose of causing harm” to plaintiff. See Whitley, supra. Plaintiff acknowledges that he has

received a copy of the excessive force interview videotape but has refused to view it. (Plaintiff’s

Motion and Supporting Affidavits to Opposition of Defendants Summary Judgmet [sic]), filed

November 22, 2004, at 4.) Defendants have not offered a copy of plaintiff’s deposition transcript

into evidence. The other evidence plaintiff claims to need through discovery is only tangentially

related to that core issue.

/////

Case 2:02-cv-02524-TLN-CKD Document 66 Filed 05/09/05 Page 3 of 6
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

3

 Plaintiff is referred to the provisions of this court’s order filed March 21, 2003 with

respect to the requirements for opposing defendants’ summary judgment motion.

4

Plaintiff has had sufficient time to conduct discovery in this action, and the

discovery he purportedly would seek at this juncture is not sufficiently related to the core issues

raised by plaintiff’s claim to justify further delay of this action. For these reasons, plaintiff’s

motions to reopen discovery and to delay disposition of defendants’ motion for summary 

judgment will be denied. Plaintiff will be given one final forty-five day period in which to file

and serve a substantive opposition to defendants’ motion for summary judgment.3 No further

extensions of time will be granted.

Plaintiff has filed three additional motions related to the matters at bar. On March

4, 2005, plaintiff filed a motion for leave to file an opposition to defendants’ summary judgment

motion, rather than a cross-motion for summary judgment. Plaintiff is not required to file a

cross-motion for summary judgment. Good cause appearing, that motion will be granted. 

On March 7, 2005, plaintiff filed a document styled “Motion and Supporting

Declaration to Get Understanding of Defendants Filing of Summary Judgment.” In this motion,

plaintiff contends that he has not received a copy of defendants’ motion for summary judgment. 

Plaintiff has not previously complained of non-receipt of defendants’ motion in the six months

since the motion was filed. Moreover, it appears that defendants’ motion for summary judgment

was properly served on plaintiff. Nonetheless, in an abundance of caution defendants will be

directed to reserve a copy of their motion and accompanying documents on plaintiff.

On March 16, 2005, plaintiff filed a motion for a sixty day extension of time to

prepare discovery requests. For the reasons set forth supra, that motion will be denied.

Finally, on October 25, 2004, plaintiff filed a pretrial statement and motion for the

attendance of witnesses at trial. The date for jury trial has been vacated pending disposition of

defendants’ motion for summary judgment. (Order filed November 4, 2004, at 2.) Plaintiff’s

motion for the attendance of witnesses at trial will be denied without prejudice. The date for

Case 2:02-cv-02524-TLN-CKD Document 66 Filed 05/09/05 Page 4 of 6
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

5

filing motions for the attendance of witnesses at trial will be reset, if appropriate, by subsequent

court order.

In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s September 2, 2004 and September 7, 2004 discovery motions are

denied as untimely.

2. Plaintiff’s September 9, 2004 motion to reopen discovery is denied;

3. Plaintiff’s September 15, 2004 pretrial motion is denied;

4. Plaintiff’s October 25, 2004 motion for the attendance of witnesses at trial is

denied without prejudice;

5. Plaintiff’s November 22, 2004 motion to postpone consideration of

defendants’ motion for summary judgment pending further discovery is denied;

6. Plaintiff’s March 4, 2005 motion for leave to file opposition to defendants’

summary judgment motion is granted;

7. Plaintiff’s March 7, 2005 motion for a copy of defendants’ summary judgment

motion is granted;

8. Plaintiff’s March 16, 2005 motion for a sixty day extension of time to conduct

discovery is denied;

9. Within five days from the date of this order, defendants shall reserve their

September 16, 2004 motion for summary judgment and accompanying documents on plaintiff;

10. Plaintiff is granted forty-five days from the date of this order to file and serve

a substantive opposition to defendants’ motion for summary judgment and no extensions of time

will be granted for any reason; and

/////

/////

/////

/////

Case 2:02-cv-02524-TLN-CKD Document 66 Filed 05/09/05 Page 5 of 6
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

6

11. Defendants’ reply brief, if any, shall be filed and served not later than seven

days thereafter.

DATED: May 6, 2005.

12

mcne2524.56f 

Case 2:02-cv-02524-TLN-CKD Document 66 Filed 05/09/05 Page 6 of 6