Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-02045/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-02045-5/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
B. Atkinson
Defendant
Raymond McGinnis
Plaintiff

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

RAYMOND McGINNIS,

Plaintiff,

v.

B. ATKINSON, 

Defendant.

1:12cv02045 AWI DLB PC

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S 

MOTION FOR LIMITED DISCOVERY 

UNDER RULE 56(D)

(Documents 30, 32)

This is a civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 by Raymond McGinnis, a state 

prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis. Plaintiff filed this action on December 17, 2012. 

The action is proceeding against Defendant Atkinson for violation of the Eighth Amendment.

Defendant filed a motion to dismiss based on Plaintiff’s failure to exhaust on December 13, 

2013. On April 16, 2014, the Court converted the motion into a motion for summary judgment and 

ordered the parties to inform the Court whether additional exhaustion-related discovery was 

necessary. 

On May 8, 2014, Defendant informed the Court that no additional discovery was needed.

On May 19, 2014, Plaintiff filed a motion entitled, “Motion for Order of Discovery.” The

Court ordered Plaintiff to clarify his request, and on June 16, 2014, Plaintiff filed request for 

exhaustion-related discovery pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(d). Defendant did not 

oppose the motion and it is now deemed submitted pursuant to Local Rule 230(l).

Case 1:12-cv-02045-AWI-DLB Document 33 Filed 07/10/14 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

DISCUSSION

A. LEGAL STANDARD

Rule 56(d) provides that “[i]f a nonmovant shows by affidavit or declaration that, for 

specified reasons, it cannot present facts essential to justify its opposition, the court may: (1) defer 

considering the motion or deny it; (2) allow time to obtain affidavits or declarations or to take 

discovery; or (3) issue any other appropriate order.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(d). 

In seeking relief under Rule 56(d), Plaintiff bears the burden of specifically identifying 

relevant information, where there is some basis for believing that the information actually exists, and 

demonstrating that the evidence sought actually exists and that it would prevent summary judgment. 

Blough v. Holland Realty, Inc., 574 F.3d 1084, 1091 n.5 (9th Cir. 2009) (quotation marks and 

citation omitted); Getz v. Boeing Co., 654 F.3d 852, 867-68 (9th Cir. 2011); Tatum v. City and 

County of San Francisco, 441 F.3d 1090, 1100-01 (9th Cir. 2006). 

B. ANALYSIS

Part of the issue in the exhaustion analysis is whether Plaintiff received certain appeal 

documents and acted accordingly to exhaust his appeals. In his request for discovery, Plaintiff

submits two requests for production of documents relating to the appeals process. 

After reviewing Plaintiff’s request, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s motion and will permit 

discovery limited to the two Requests for Production of Documents submitted with Plaintiff’s 

motion.

Plaintiff must serve this limited discovery on Defendant within twenty-one (21) days of the 

date of service of this order. Defendant must respond within thirty (30) days of service.

Case 1:12-cv-02045-AWI-DLB Document 33 Filed 07/10/14 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

Any supplemental opposition shall be due within thirty (30) days of receiving responses to 

discovery. Defendant’s reply, if any, shall be due within fourteen (14) days of service of the 

supplemental opposition. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 9, 2014 /s/ Dennis L. Beck 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:12-cv-02045-AWI-DLB Document 33 Filed 07/10/14 Page 3 of 3