United States District Court, N.D. California
August 31, 2005.
SCOTT W. CAMPBELL, SR., Plaintiff,
EDWARD S. ALAMEIDA, et al., Defendants.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: PHYLLIS HAMILTON, District Judge
DENIAL OF MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT; RULINGS (Docs 21, 41, 42 &
This is a civil rights case filed pro se by a state prisoner.
Plaintiff complains that he is not allowed the "religious oils"
called for by his religious beliefs. After defendants Lamarque
and Sareli filed a motion for summary judgment, plaintiff moved
for leave to amend to add new claims and a new defendant, Moon.
The court granted that motion and ordered service on Moon.
Plaintiff has filed a motion pursuant to Rule 56(f) of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure in which he asks that the court
order defendants to permit him to have personal contact with
three named inmates, who, because they are in a different housing
unit, he is not permitted to contact. He wants a short time with
them to prepare a declaration and obtain their signature. The
motion is not opposed.
Also pending is defendants' motion for an extension of time to
file a motion for summary judgment. Although in the court's order
of service for the amended complaint it contemplated that
defendants would file only a supplemental dispositive motion
addressing the new claims and the new defendant, it appears from
the defendants' motion for an extension of time that they
contemplate filing an entirely new motion. In view of the
amendment, the difficulty of handling a motion which is set out in several documents, and plaintiff's Rule 56(f) request,
the original motion for summary judgment (doc 21) is DENIED,
without prejudice to renewing it as scheduled below. See
Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(f) (when nonmovant requests additional time for
discovery, court may deny motion for summary judgment or withhold
Because of possible security implications, plaintiff's request
that he be allowed personal contact with the proposed declarants
(doc 41) is DENIED. Plaintiff shall instead provide counsel for
defendants with three separate documents constituting the
declarations plaintiff wants the three witnesses to consider, and
counsel for defendants shall arrange for these to be delivered to
the declarants. Because these documents are intended for filing
in a case, they are not confidential. Prison authorities may read
them to determine whether there is any security reason they
should not be delivered to the proposed declarants. If the prison
authorities conclude that the proposed declarations should not be
delivered, counsel for defendants shall so inform the court
immediately. If the declarations are delivered to the witnesses,
counsel for defendants shall cause the signed declarations to be
returned to plaintiff within thirty days of this order.
Defendants' motion for an extension of time to file their
dispositive motion (doc 42) is GRANTED. The motion is due by
October 31, 2005. The times for opposition and reply remain as in
the original scheduling order.
Plaintiff's motion "For Affirmation And/or Correction of Record
Nunc Pro Tunc" (doc 44) is GRANTED. The two documents plaintiff
inquires about were received. The clerk shall send plaintiff a
copy of the docket sheet with his copy of this order.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
© 1992-2005 VersusLaw Inc.