Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

CAMPBELL v. ALAMEIDA

United States District Court, N.D. California


August 31, 2005.

SCOTT W. CAMPBELL, SR., Plaintiff,
v.
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 & 44)
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 ruling).

  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.

20050831

© 1992-2005 VersusLaw Inc.



Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.