IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
September 30, 2009
ERIC B. HILL, PLAINTIFF,
RAYLENE DAUGHERTY, DEFENDANT.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Honorable B. Lynn Winmill Chief U. S. District Judge
ORDER RE: REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
The Court has before it a Report and Recommendation filed by a United States Magistrate Judge. (Docket No. 47.) Plaintiff, a federal prisoner, has brought this action under Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971), which is the federal analogue to civil rights suits brought against state officials under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. In his remaining claim, Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Raylene Daugherty violated his rights under the First Amendment when she allegedly had him fired from his job as a prison barber in retaliation for Plaintiff's filing of grievances and complaints. The United States Magistrate Judge recommends granting summary judgment to Defendant Daugherty because there is no genuine issue of material fact as to whether Defendant took any "adverse action" against Plaintiff. (Docket No. 47, pp. 9-10.) The Report and Recommendation appears to be an appropriate disposition of the merits of the pending Motions based upon the evidence currently in the record.
However, after the Magistrate Judge issued the Report and Recommendation, Plaintiff filed a "Motion for Reconsideration," which the Court construes as an objection. Plaintiff asserts that he did not receive notice that his motions to extend the discovery deadline were granted until the Report and Recommendation was entered, and, as a result, he was unable to complete his discovery and properly respond to the Motion for Summary Judgment. Plaintiff is currently housed in a federal facility in Safford, Arizona; his filings are processed by the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California; and judges from the United States District Court for the District of Idaho preside over and issue decisions his case. Given the logistics involved in filing and managing this case among the three states, the Court will grant Plaintiff's Motion and permit one additional extension for discovery and supplemental briefing before finally resolving the pending Motions for Summary Judgment.
NOW THEREFORE IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation (Docket No. 47) is REJECTED on procedural grounds based on Plaintiff's assertion that he did not have an opportunity to complete discovery and supplement the record with sufficient completeness before a final ruling on the summary judgment motions is made.
IT IS FURTHER HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant's Cross Motion for Summary Judgment (Docket No. 42) is DENIED without prejudice pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(f) .
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment (Docket No. 25) is DENIED without prejudice pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(f).
IT IS FURTHER HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration (Docket No. 48) is GRANTED. The parties shall have until November 30, 2009, in which to conduct and complete any outstanding discovery (discovery requests must be sent out far enough in advance for the discovery to be returned to the requesting party by November 30, 2009). Plaintiff shall have until December 15, 2009, in which to file a supplemental response to Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment. Defendant shall file any supplemental reply on or before December 31, 2009. Defendant shall have until December 15, 2009, in which to file a supplemental response to Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment, and Plaintiff shall file any supplemental reply on or before December 31, 2009. Supplemental responses and replies are optional and not mandatory, but if one is to be filed, it must be filed by the deadlines set forth herein.
IT IS FURTHER HEREBY ORDERED that the Court shall reconsider the Motions for Summary Judgment after a supplemental response and reply are filed, or after the time period for filing them has expired, without the need for the parties to re-file or reassert the motions.
© 1992-2009 VersusLaw Inc.