Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_17-cv-01949/USCOURTS-caed-2_17-cv-01949-17/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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ALLEN HAMMLER,

Plaintiff,

v.

DIRECTOR OF CDCR, et al.,

Defendants.

No. 2:17-cv-1949 MCE DB P

ORDER 

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with a civil rights 

action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff claims prison officials have failed to provide him 

with safe living conditions in violation of the Eighth Amendment. Presently before the court is

plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 77) and defendant’s opposition (ECF No. 82).

On September 16, 2019, plaintiff filed a motion for summary judgment. (ECF No. 77.) 

He argues the court should grant summary judgment because defendants are following the 

housing policy he challenges in this case and the only “remaining question is whether the 

defendant’s continuing in the course is legal.” (Id. at 1.)

Defendant filed an opposition arguing that the court should deny the motion because the 

court has not yet ruled on the pending motion to dismiss, the parties have not yet engaged in 

discovery, and plaintiff’s motion fails to comply with Local Rule 260(a). (ECF No. 82.)

//// 

Case 2:17-cv-01949-MCE-DB Document 94 Filed 02/07/20 Page 1 of 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

2

“[T]he plain language of Rule 56(c) mandates the entry of summary judgment, after

adequate time for discovery and upon motion, against a party who fails to make a showing 

sufficient to establish the existence of an element essential to that party’s case, and on which that 

party will bear the burden of proof at trial.” Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322 (1986) 

(emphasis added). Defendant is entitled to conduct discovery before opposing a summary 

judgment motion. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56. Here, the motion to dismiss has not yet been resolved and 

the parties have yet to engage in discovery. Thus, plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment 

should be denied as premature. However, plaintiff may file a future motion for summary 

judgment that incorporates all relevant materials obtained after the period set for the completion 

of all discovery as contemplated by Rule 56. See Gordon v. Marquez, 2019 WL 1017323 at *1 

(E.D. Cal. Mar. 4, 2019) (denying as premature plaintiff’s motion for summary for summary 

judgment filed before the parties conducted discovery, but noting that plaintiff could file a future 

motion for summary judgment following a period of discovery). Accordingly, the court will deny 

plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment without prejudice.

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 77) 

is denied without prejudice. 

Dated: February 7, 2020

DLB:12

DB/prisoner-civil rights/hamm1049.summ.prem

Case 2:17-cv-01949-MCE-DB Document 94 Filed 02/07/20 Page 2 of 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

3

Case 2:17-cv-01949-MCE-DB Document 94 Filed 02/07/20 Page 3 of 3