Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_11-cv-01503/USCOURTS-caed-1_11-cv-01503-10/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Rodney Brooks
Plaintiff
Harold Tate
Defendant

Document Text:

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

RODNEY BROOKS,

Plaintiff,

v.

HAROLD TATE,

Defendant.

Case No. 1:11-cv-01503 AWI DLB PC

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S 

MOTION TO STRIKE DEFENDANT’S 

MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

[ECF No. 66]

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S 

REQUEST FOR EXTENSION OF TIME

[ECF No. 69]

Plaintiff Rodney Brooks (“Plaintiff”) is a California state prisoner proceeding pro se and in 

forma pauperis in this civil action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action is proceeding against 

Defendant Harold Tate for claims of retaliation in violation of the First Amendment and deliberate 

indifference to a serious medical need in violation of the Eighth Amendment.

On December 9, 2013, Defendant Tate filed a motion for summary judgment. Plaintiff filed 

a motion to strike the motion for summary judgment on December 26, 2013. Defendant filed an 

opposition on January 3, 2014. On January 16, 2014, Plaintiff filed a motion requesting an extension 

of time of forty-five (45) days to file an opposition to Defendant’s motion for summary judgment. 

Defendant filed an opposition on January 31, 2014. Plaintiff filed a reply on February 18, 2014.

I. Motion to Strike Motion for Summary Judgment

Plaintiff acknowledges that Defendant filed a motion for summary judgment on December 9, 

2013. He states he became aware of the filing on December 18, 2013, when he received a notice of 

Case 1:11-cv-01503-AWI-DLB Document 75 Filed 09/10/14 Page 1 of 4
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

errata from Defendant. Plaintiff states he was not served with a copy of the motion for summary 

judgment. Plaintiff also states that there were discovery motions pending at the time Defendant filed 

the motion for summary judgment. Plaintiff claims that in light of the outstanding motions, it would 

be inappropriate to proceed on the motion for summary judgment until those motions are resolved. 

Finally, Plaintiff contends he did not receive a copy of his deposition transcript as requested from 

Defendant. He states Defendant should provide him a copy since Defendant relies on the transcript 

in his motion for summary judgment.

Defendant states he duly served Plaintiff at his address of record at Corcoran State Prison. 

Defendant states, and Plaintiff concedes, that Plaintiff was transferred to California State Prison, 

Sacramento, on or about December 12, 2013, but Plaintiff did not file a change of address until 

December 30, 2013. Defendant states he re-served the motion on Plaintiff when he became aware of 

the changed address. Defendant is correct that it is Plaintiff’s affirmative duty to keep the Court and 

opposing parties apprised of his current address. Local Rules 182(f), 183(b). Defendant’s service at 

Plaintiff’s address of record was proper and effective notice of the motion, and is no cause to strike 

the motion for summary judgment.

In addition, Defendant correctly notes that Plaintiff is not entitled to a free copy of his 

deposition transcript. Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(f)(3). Plaintiff is entitled only to review the transcript and 

make changes, if he made a request for review before the completion of the deposition. Fed. R. Civ. 

P. 30(e)(1). If Plaintiff made a timely request, the Court requests that Defendant ensures the review 

to which he is entitled occurs. With regard to Plaintiff’s concerns about the information Defendant 

relied on in his motion for summary judgment, Defendant notes that the relevant portions of the 

deposition transcript were attached to the motion.

As to Plaintiff’s concerns regarding the outstanding discovery motions, the Court has denied 

those motions by separate order.

Accordingly, there are no grounds to strike the motion for summary judgment. Plaintiff’s 

motion will be denied.

II. Motion for Extension of Time

On January 16, 2014, Plaintiff requested an extension of time to file an opposition to the 

Case 1:11-cv-01503-AWI-DLB Document 75 Filed 09/10/14 Page 2 of 4
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

motion for summary judgment. Plaintiff stated he was seeking additional time because he had not 

received a copy of the motion for summary judgment until December 31, 2013. In addition, Plaintiff 

complained that he did not have a copy of the deposition transcript. Also, he claims he requires an 

extension because there are outstanding discovery motions, and he is relying on that discovery to 

oppose the motion for summary judgment.

Defendant does not oppose a brief extension, but he does oppose a more lengthy extension of 

forty-five days as Plaintiff had requested. Defendant states Plaintiff has had ample time since 

receiving the motion for summary judgment to file an opposition. In addition, Defendant claims the 

delay in receiving the motion was Plaintiff’s own creation since Plaintiff did not timely file a notice 

of address change with the Court. 

The Court finds good cause to grant an extension of time. Defendant served the motion for 

summary judgment on December 9, 2013, and Plaintiff was moved on December 12, 2013. The 

Court understands that a prison move may affect a prisoner’s ability to timely comply with 

deadlines, since a prisoner’s legal materials often do not follow the prisoner for several weeks. In 

addition, Plaintiff states he intended to use information he was attempting to attain by way of the 

outstanding discovery requests to contest the motion. Although the discovery requests have been 

denied by separate order, the Court has only now ruled on them. Therefore, Plaintiff’s request for an 

extension will be granted. Nevertheless, the extension will be for twenty-one (21) days given that 

Plaintiff will now have had nine months to prepare his opposition. Plaintiff is forewarned that an 

extension of time will not be granted, absent a showing of good cause.

///

///

///

///

///

///

///

///

Case 1:11-cv-01503-AWI-DLB Document 75 Filed 09/10/14 Page 3 of 4
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

ORDER

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:

1) Plaintiff’s motion to strike Defendant’s motion for summary judgment is DENIED; 

and

2) Plaintiff’s motion for extension of time to file an opposition to the motion for 

summary judgment is GRANTED, and Plaintiff is GRANTED twenty-one (21) days from the date 

of service of this order to file his opposition. No extension of time will be granted absent a 

showing of good cause.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 10, 2014 /s/ Dennis L. Beck 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:11-cv-01503-AWI-DLB Document 75 Filed 09/10/14 Page 4 of 4