Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_02-cv-06227/USCOURTS-caed-1_02-cv-06227-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Federal Question: Bivens Act

---

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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

THEODORE MICHAEL,

Plaintiff,

v.

RAYMOND ANDREWS,

Defendants.

 /

CV F 02 6227 LJO P 

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR

SUMMARY JUDGMENT (Doc. 59.) 

Theodore Michael (“Plaintiff”) is a federal prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma

pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal

Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971). Pursuant to Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(c)(1), the parties

have consented to the jurisdiction of the United States Magistrate Judge. 

A. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

This action is proceeding on Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint filed on February 4,

2003, alleging that Plaintiff was discriminated against for exercising his religious beliefs as a

Black Muslim and was denied his Religious Diet Program, “Halal.” (Second Amended

Case 1:02-cv-06227-NEW Document 87 Filed 08/02/05 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

27

28

1The Court found Plaintiff’s claims for relief against all defendants cognizable on November 14, 2002. 

(Doc. 5.) 

2

Complaint - Doc. 10.)1

On March 20, 2003, and prior to service, Defendants filed an Answer. (Doc. 11.) A

scheduling order issued on April 10, 2003. (Doc. 12.) 

On June 26, 2003, in a Motion to Strike the Scheduling Order, defendants informed the

court that the Answer was submitted in response to the initial complaint as that was the only

Complaint that had been served on Defendants. (Doc. 17.) The Court vacated its Scheduling

Order on September 11, 2003. (Doc. 28.) On September 19, 2003, Defendants filed an Answer

to the Second Amended Complaint. A Second Scheduling Order issued on May 12, 2004, and

the Court set a Telephonic Trial Confirmation Hearing before Judge Ishii on December 13, 2004,

and trial for January 25, 2005. 

Pursuant to that Order, Plaintiff filed a timely pretrial statement on October 26, 2004. 

However, no pretrial statement was filed by Defendants. On December 1, 2004, the District

Court issued an Order to Show Cause why sanctions should not be imposed for failing to submit

a pretrial statement. (Doc. 50) A return to the Order to Show Cause was filed by Defendants on

December 9, 2004. (Doc. 52.) On December 13, 2004, the district conducted the previously

scheduled telephonic trial confirmation hearing, vacated the trial date and referred the matter

back to the undersigned for the purpose of setting a dispositive motion deadline. (Docs. 53, 54.) 

The District Court further reopened discovery limited to the exchange of information regarding

Plaintiff’s special diet. The deadline for the exchange of information expired on December 31,

2004. 

On January 19, 2005, the Court held a Telephonic Scheduling Conference for the purpose

of setting a dispositive motion deadline. The Court also set dates for a Trial Conformation

Hearing and Trial. (Doc. 57.) 

On February 7, 2005, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Summary Judgment. (Doc. 59.) 

Defendants filed their Motion for Summary Judgment on February 18, 2005. (Doc. 66.) 

Defendants filed an Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment on March 10, 2005. 

Case 1:02-cv-06227-NEW Document 87 Filed 08/02/05 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

27

28

3

On April 27, 2005, Plaintiff filed a Reply to Defendant’s Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion for

Summary Judgment. (Doc. 85.) Plaintiff filed his Opposition to Defendant’s Motion for

Summary Judgment on May 18, 2005. 

B. SUMMARY JUDGMENT 

Summary judgment is appropriate when it is demonstrated that there exists no genuine

issue as to any material fact, and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c). Under summary judgment practice, the moving party 

always bears the initial responsibility of informing the district court

of the basis for its motion, and identifying those portions of "the

pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions

on file, together with the affidavits, if any," which it believes

demonstrate the absence of a genuine issue of material fact.

Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986). "[W]here the nonmoving party will bear the

burden of proof at trial on a dispositive issue, a Summary Judgment Motion may properly be

made in reliance solely on the 'pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions

on file.'" Id. Indeed, summary judgment should be entered, 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. Id. at 322. "[A] complete failure of proof concerning an essential element of the

nonmoving party's case necessarily renders all other facts immaterial." Id. In such a

circumstance, summary judgment should be granted, "so long as whatever is before the district

court demonstrates that the standard for entry of summary judgment, as set forth in Rule 56(c), is

satisfied." Id. at 323.

If the moving party meets its initial responsibility, the burden then shifts to the opposing

party to establish that a genuine issue as to any material fact actually does exist. Matsushita Elec.

Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 586 (1986).

In attempting to establish the existence of this factual dispute, the opposing party may not

rely upon the denials of its pleadings, but is required to tender evidence of specific facts in the

form of affidavits, and/or admissible discovery material, in support of its contention that the

dispute exists. Rule 56(e); Matsushita, 475 U.S. at 586 n.11. The opposing party must

Case 1:02-cv-06227-NEW Document 87 Filed 08/02/05 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

27

28

4

demonstrate that the fact in contention is material, i.e., a fact that might affect the outcome of the

suit under the governing law, Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986); T.W.

Elec. Serv., Inc. v. Pacific Elec. Contractors Ass'n, 809 F.2d 626, 630 (9th Cir. 1987), and that

the dispute is genuine, i.e., the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for

the nonmoving party, Wool v. Tandem Computers, Inc., 818 F.2d 1433, 1436 (9th Cir. 1987).

In resolving the Motion for Summary Judgment, the Court examines the pleadings,

depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if

any. Rule 56(c). The evidence of the opposing party is to be believed, Anderson, 477 U.S. at

255, and all reasonable inferences that may be drawn from the facts placed before the court must

be drawn in favor of the opposing party, Matsushita, 475 U.S. at 587 (citing United States v.

Diebold, Inc., 369 U.S. 654, 655 (1962)(per curiam). Nevertheless, inferences are not drawn out

of the air, and it is the opposing party's obligation to produce a factual predicate from which the

inference may be drawn. Richards v. Nielsen Freight Lines, 602 F. Supp. 1224, 1244-45 (E.D.

Cal. 1985), aff'd, 810 F.2d 898, 902 (9th Cir. 1987). 

In this case, Plaintiff asserts that he served Defendants with Requests for Admissions on

November 3, 2003, however, Defendant never filed a response. Plaintiff asserts that Defendants

further failed to seek relief from their default and thus, the admissions are deemed admitted and

he is entitled to Judgment. In support, Plaintiff submits several exhibits attached to his

Declaration in Support of the Motion for Summary Judgment. The most relevant attachment is

Exhibit B which consists of Plaintiff’s Requests for Admissions and Interrogatories. A close

examination of this exhibit shows that Plaintiff signed the Requests on November 3, 2005. 

However, no certificate of service is attached. 

Defendants argue that they never received any Requests for Admissions from Plaintiff. 

The Declaration provided by Clayton Mack, Counsel for Defendant’s, states that Plaintiff

claimed to have propounded the Requests for Admissions in a letter dated December 7, 2003,

and indicated that he was going to have the Requests deemed admitted. (Decl. of Clayton Mack

at 2.) Counsel states further that he did not respond to Plaintiff’s “threat” to have the admissions

deemed admitted because Plaintiff failed to serve the Request for Admissions on him. Id. 

Case 1:02-cv-06227-NEW Document 87 Filed 08/02/05 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

27

28

5

Plaintiff argues that Defendants are “estopped” from making such a claim because they

have received numerous other filings and pleadings from him over the last three years that

reference the Requests for Admissions. (Plaintiff’s “Answer” to Opposition at ¶ 1.) Plaintiff

states further that Defendants should have made the fact that they did not receive the Requests an

“issue” well before they filed their Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment. Id.

at ¶ 2. Finally, Plaintiff argues that the Court deemed the matters “admitted” in its Order of

September 28, 2004. 

The Court has reviewed the material and declarations submitted by Plaintiff and finds that

Plaintiff has failed to meet his burden of establishing that he is entitled to Judgment on the basis

that the Requests for Admissions are deemed admitted. As noted by Defendant’s, Plaintiff

submits no evidence in the form of a certificate of service indicating that he indeed served the

Requests for Admissions on Defendants. The Court has closely examined Exhibit B provided in

Support of Plaintiff’s Motion and finds it lacking in proof of service. In addition, following a

close examination of the record, the Court notes that Plaintiff has submitted a copy of the

Requests for Admissions to the Court directly or as an attachment to another pleading. However,

none of the submissions evidence a certificate of service. (Docs. 37, 38, 39, 42.) Defendants

declaration and the lack of evidence by Plaintiff establishes sufficiently that Defendants did not

receive the Requests for Admissions and thus, they are not deemed “admitted” for the purposes

of this action. 

Plaintiff’s contention that Defendants are “estopped” from claiming they did not receive

the Requests because they have received other pleading that reference the Requests for

Admissions is insufficient to prove that Defendants were, in fact, served with them. Plaintiff’s

contention that Defendants should have raised the issue of the fact that they did not receive the

Requests for Admissions before now is in error. If a party does not receive pleadings or

discovery due to opposing party’s failure to serve the documents, they cannot be expected to raise

the issue of never getting them unless, or until they documents become an issue in the case. Here,

Defendant’s defense to the Motion for Summary Judgment is that they never received the

Requests for Admissions. Defendant’s acknowledgment of the lack of service is appropriate at

Case 1:02-cv-06227-NEW Document 87 Filed 08/02/05 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

27

28

6

this time. 

Finally, with regard to Plaintiff’s assertion that this Court deemed the matters “admitted”

on September 28, 2004, Plaintiff is mistaken. The Court’s Order dated September 28, 2004,

denied Plaintiff’s Motion to Deem the Requests for Admissions admitted as “untimely and

unnecessary.” (Doc. 43.) Rule 36, regarding Requests for Admissions, expressly contemplates

that the Requests will be served on the opposing party. Fed.R.Civ.P. 36. Without service,

requests cannot be deemed admitted because the receiving party had no notice of the facts to be

deemed admitted. Moreover, the Court’s reference in the Order dated September 28, 2004 to the

fact that Defendants failed to respond and all matters were deemed admitted, did not preclude

Defendants from defending against a Motion for Summary Judgment by demonstrating that they

did not receive the Requests for Admissions. 

C. CONCLUSION AND ORDER

As Plaintiff fails to provide evidence that he served the Requests for Admissions on the

Defendant’s, he has failed to meet his burden of establishing that there exists no material fact

warranting trial. Accordingly, the Court HEREBY ORDERS: 

1. Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment is DENIED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 2, 2005 /s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill 

b9ed48 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:02-cv-06227-NEW Document 87 Filed 08/02/05 Page 6 of 6