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.

Richard Ernest Anaya v. Roseanne Campbell

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA


May 4, 2011

RICHARD ERNEST ANAYA, PLAINTIFF
v.
ROSEANNE CAMPBELL, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Gregory G. Hollows United States Magistrate Judge

ORDER

Plaintiff is a prison inmate proceeding with appointed counsel with a civil rights action.

On January 4, 2011, counsel was appointed for plaintiff and on January 14, 2011, defendants were provided an opportunity to file a motion for summary judgment. Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment on February 25, 2011. On March 8, 2011, the parties filed a briefing and hearing schedule and all briefings were to be filed by May 5, 2011, and the hearing on the summary judgment motion was to occur on May 19, 2011. On May 2, 2011, plaintiff filed a request to reopen discovery for six months and to continue the summary judgment hearing at a date after the close of discovery. It is not clear why this request was not filed months ago.

As plaintiff's request was filed just a few days before the due date for the summary judgment opposition, a date which had been chosen several months ago by the parties, the court construes the motion as a request to delay summary judgment and reopen discovery pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(d)(2).*fn1 However, plaintiff's motion has failed to follow the procedures of Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(d)(2), by not elaborating on the "specific reasons" why summary judgment cannot adequately be opposed at this time.

Plaintiff stated that he does not intend to engage in a fishing expedition, but rather seeks a narrow set of documents, depositions, interrogatories and request for admissions.*fn2

Motion at 8. However, plaintiff does not describe the narrow set of requests with enough specificity, instead generally stating that information is required regarding plaintiff's injuries, the procedures defendants followed and their state of mind.

Within ten days, plaintiff may describe in detail what discovery is needed, from which defendants, and how long it will take to obtain it. The 180 days that plaintiff has requested is far too much time. No extensions will be provided to file this briefing. If plaintiff does not file this briefing, then the opposition to summary judgment will be due in 28 days.

According, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Within ten days, plaintiff may describe in detail what discovery is needed, from which defendants and how long it will take to obtain it. No extensions will be provided. If plaintiff does not file this briefing, then the opposition to summary judgment will be due in 28 days;

2. The hearing set for May 19, 2011, is vacated.

Gregory G. Hollows


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.