Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_10-cv-00803/USCOURTS-caed-1_10-cv-00803-18/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

GARRISON S. JOHNSON,

Plaintiff,

v.

MATHEW CATE, et al.,

Defendants.

CASE NO. 1:10-cv-0803-AWI-MJS (PC)

ORDER GRANTING IN PART 

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO STAY 

PROCEEDINGS ON DEFENDANT’S 

MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

(ECF No. 95)

THIRTY (30) DAY DEADLINE

I. PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights action brought 

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (ECF No. 1.) The action proceeds against Defendant 

Harrington on Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment claim for cruel and unusual punishment and 

his California state law negligence claim. (ECF Nos. 20 & 23.) Specifically, Plaintiff 

claims that Defendant was deliberately indifferent to a serious risk of harm to Plaintiff 

from arsenic-contaminated water at Kern Valley State Prison (“KVSP”) where Plaintiff 

was housed. (ECF No. 19.)

Defendant filed a motion for summary judgment. (ECF No. 66.) Plaintiff filed an 

opposition (ECF No. 85), and Defendant filed replies (ECF Nos. 90, 91, 92.) Defendant 

also filed objections to some of Plaintiff’s evidence, and moved to strike that evidence. 

(ECF No. 93.) 

Case 1:10-cv-00803-AWI-MJS Document 105 Filed 07/06/15 Page 1 of 5
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

Thereafter, Plaintiff filed a purported Notice of Errata with additional exhibits (ECF 

No. 94), a sur-reply (ECF No. 96), and a response to Defendant’s evidentiary objections 

and motion to strike (ECF No. 97). Plaintiff also filed a motion to stay proceedings on the 

motion for summary judgment to allow him to obtain additional evidence. (ECF No. 95.) 

Defendant moved to strike Plaintiff’s sur-reply (ECF No. 99), replied to Plaintiff’s 

opposition to Defendant’s motion to strike (ECF No. 100), and opposed the motion to 

stay (ECF No. 101). Plaintiff opposed the motion to strike his sur-reply (ECF No. 103), 

and replied to Defendant’s opposition to his motion to stay (ECF No. 104).

Although numerous filings relating to the summary judgment motion are pending 

before the Court, the Court herein addresses only Plaintiff’s motion to stay. (ECF No. 

95.) The matter is deemed submitted. Local Rule 230(l).

II. LEGAL STANDARD

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(d) permits the Court to delay consideration of 

a motion for summary judgment to allow parties to obtain discovery to oppose the 

motion. When a motion for summary judgment is filed “before a party has had any 

realistic opportunity to pursue discovery relating to its theory of the case,” a Rule 56(d) 

motion should be freely granted. Burlington N. Santa Fe R.R. Co. v. Assiniboine and 

Sioux Tribes of the Fort Peck Reservation, 323 F.3d 767, 773 (9th Cir. 2003).

A party asserting that discovery is necessary to oppose a motion for summary 

judgment “shall provide a specification of the particular facts on which discovery is to be 

had or the issues on which discovery is necessary.” Local Rule 260(b). However, where 

“no discovery whatsoever has taken place, the party making a Rule 56[(d)] motion 

cannot be expected to frame its motion with great specificity as to the kind of discovery 

likely to turn up useful information, as the ground for such specificity has not yet been 

laid.” Burlington N., 323 F.3d at 774. “The Courts which have denied a Rule 56[(d)] 

application for lack of sufficient showing to support further discovery appear to have 

done so where it was clear that the evidence sought was almost certainly nonexistent or 

Case 1:10-cv-00803-AWI-MJS Document 105 Filed 07/06/15 Page 2 of 5
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

was the object of pure speculation.” VISA Int’l. Serv. Ass’n v. Bankcard Holders of Am., 

784 F.2d 1472, 1475 (9th Cir. 1986) (citation omitted).

III. DISCUSSION

This case involves Plaintiff’s allegation that Defendant was deliberately indifferent 

to a serious risk of harm to Plaintiff from arsenic in the water at KVSP. (ECF No. 19.) In 

support of the motion for summary judgment, Defendant submits a declaration from 

retained expert R. Geller, M.D., stating that the levels of arsenic Plaintiff was exposed to 

were insufficient to harm Plaintiff’s health and, in any event, Plaintiff’s health complaints 

are not associated with arsenic poisoning. (ECF No. 71.) 

Plaintiff filed a declaration in opposition. In paragraphs ten through twelve, Plaintiff 

states that he was forced to drink water containing poisonous, inorganic arsenic, and 

that long term exposure to such contaminant may, and in Plaintiff’s case did, have 

various health effects. (ECF No. 85 at 25-26.) Attached as Exhibit A to Plaintiff’s 

declaration is a letter from the Department of Health and Human Services, addressed to 

Plaintiff, discussing effects of inorganic arsenic. (ECF No. 85 at 80-81.) Attached as 

Exhibit E to Plaintiff’s declaration is a brochure from the Department of Health and 

Human Services, entitled “ToxGuide for Arsenic.” (ECF No. 85 at 111-12.) Attached as 

Exhibit M to Plaintiff’s declaration is a webpage printout from the Centers for Disease 

Control and Prevention containing a definition of “arsenic (inorganic).” (ECF No. 85 at 

46.) 

Defendant moved to strike the foregoing evidence presented by Plaintiff on 

various grounds. (ECF No. 93.) Relevant here, Defendant moved to strike the specified 

portions of Plaintiff’s declaration as unqualified expert testimony. Defendant moved to 

strike the specified exhibits as containing hearsay, lacking foundation, and lacking

authentication.

Plaintiff seeks a stay to obtain a declaration from “someone of the Center for 

Disease Control and Prevention” in support of his claims. (ECF No. 95.) Plaintiff states 

that he previously was unable to afford a retained expert, but now has funds to do so. 

Case 1:10-cv-00803-AWI-MJS Document 105 Filed 07/06/15 Page 3 of 5
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

Additionally, or alternatively, Plaintiff seeks additional time to serve subpoenas on the 

Center for Disease Control and Prevention and the Department of Health and Human 

Service requiring officials there to produce affidavits to authenticate Exhibits A, E, and M. 

(ECF No. 104.) Plaintiff again states that he was foreclosed from seeking such 

subpoenas previously due to his indigence. If the stay is granted, Plaintiff requests the 

Court send him two subpoenas duces tecum. 

Defendant’s motion for summary judgment has been pending for over nine 

months. Extensions of time have been granted to both parties. Discovery has concluded 

and the motion is fully briefed. In light of these circumstances, the Court is unwilling to 

stay these proceedings for ninety days on the speculative prospect that Plaintiff may be 

able to obtain evidence in support of his cause. At the same time, the Court is unwilling 

to limit Plaintiff’s ability to address the merits of his case solely based on defects caused 

by Plaintiff’s indigence and pro se status, if there is a possibility of such defects being 

cured. 

Accordingly, the Court will grant Plaintiff a limited stay of thirty days to consult with 

any proposed expert witness. At the conclusion of thirty days, Plaintiff may seek 

additional time by making a further showing that evidence bearing on his claims is 

forthcoming. However, absent a declaration from a prospective expert providing some 

indication that relevant evidence bearing on the motion for summary judgment is 

forthcoming, the Court is unlikely to entertain further requests to stay.

The Court will not grant additional time for Plaintiff to pursue subpoenas to require 

officials to authenticate his documents by way of affidavit, nor will the Court issue 

subpoenas for such purpose. Such a request is outside the scope of Federal Rule of 

Civil Procedure 45. That rule permits subpoenas to “attend and testify; produce 

designated documents, electronically stored information, or tangible things in that 

person's possession, custody, or control; or permit the inspection of premises.” It does 

not permit a subpoena for the purpose of requiring a person to create an affidavit on a 

litigant’s behalf. The Court will review Plaintiff’s exhibits and Defendants’ objections in 

Case 1:10-cv-00803-AWI-MJS Document 105 Filed 07/06/15 Page 4 of 5
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

the course of ruling on the motion for summary judgment, and will give the exhibits such 

weight as they are due at this stage of the proceedings. See Block v. City of Los 

Angeles, 253 F.3d 410, 418-19 (9th Cir. 2001) (“To survive summary judgment, a party 

does not necessarily have to produce evidence in a form that would be admissible at 

trial, as long as the party satisfies the requirements of Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 

56.”).

IV. ORDER

Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff’s motion to stay (ECF No. 95) is hereby 

GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. Proceedings on Defendants’ motion for 

summary judgment are stayed for thirty days from the date of this order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 2, 2015 /s/Michael J. Seng 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:10-cv-00803-AWI-MJS Document 105 Filed 07/06/15 Page 5 of 5