Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

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

Matthew B. Cramer v. Target Corporation

July 26, 2011

MATTHEW B. CRAMER,
PLAINTIFF,
v.
TARGET CORPORATION, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: Sheila K. Oberto United States Magistrate Judge

ORDER GRANTING IN PART PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME AND PROVIDING ADDITIONAL RAND NOTICE

(DOCKET NO. 162)

I. INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND

Plaintiff Matthew B. Cramer ("Plaintiff") is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On July 6, 2010, Defendants Eric Heller ("Heller") and Clebo Wheatly ("Wheatly") filed a motion for summary judgment. (Doc. 92.) Heller and Wheatly assert that they are entitled to judgment as a matter of law because there are no genuine issues of material fact. (Doc. 92.) On July 21, 2010, Plaintiff filed an opposition to Defendants Heller and Wheatly's motion for summary judgment. (Doc. 100). On August 2, 2010, Defendants Heller and Wheatly filed a reply to Plaintiff's opposition brief. (Doc. 107.)

On August 13, 2010, following Defendant Barrios' answer to Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint, the Court issued a Discovery Order opening discovery and setting discovery and pre-trial motion deadlines. (Doc. 118.)

On September 16, 2010, Defendant Barrios also filed a motion for summary judgment asserting he is entitled to judgment as a matter of law because there are no genuine issues of material fact. (Doc. 127.) On January 24, 2011, Plaintiff filed an opposition to Defendant Barrios' motion for summary judgment (Doc. 140), to which Defendant Barrios replied on February 3, 2011 (Doc. 143).

On February 11, 2011, the Court issued an order construing Plaintiff's oppositions to each of the motions for summary judgment as containing Rule 56(f) motions.*fn1 (Doc. 147.) The Court determined that Plaintiff's Rule 56(f) motions were insufficient because they did not identify how facts or evidence that could be obtained with additional discovery would preclude Defendants' motions. In denying Plaintiff's Rule 56(f) motion, however, the Court noted that the summary judgment motions were filed "before [Plaintiff] had any realistic opportunity to pursue discovery relating to [his] theory of the case" and permitted Plaintiff an opportunity to renew his 56(f) motion. After providing Plaintiff with the applicable standards for filing a Rule 56(f) motion, the Court granted Plaintiff an additional 30 days from the date of the order to file a renewed Rule 56(f) motion.

On March 2, 2011, Plaintiff filed an "objection/response of denying Plaintiff's Rule 56(f) motion [without] prejudice (for the record for appellate review)." (Doc. 149.) Plaintiff again reiterated that at least one hour and 47 minutes of Target video surveillance has been withheld by Defendants, and the subpoena he served on Target to obtain this and other evidence was quashed by the Court. (Doc. 149, p. 2, 7.) As a result, Plaintiff asserted that he has been prevented from a meaningful opportunity to discover the video surveillance he believes exists but has not been provided to him. (Doc. 149, p. 2.)

Plaintiff also asserted that he has outstanding medical bills, has suffered a loss of property, and has continued medical needs. (Doc. 149, at p. 4 ("Plaintiff has outstanding medical bills, loss of property[,] and continual medical needs, and that alone would defeat summary judgment.").) He cited his "huge disadvantages" in litigating his case without the assistance of an attorney, and asserted that he does not have the funds to have a specialist opine as to his March 3, 2008, injury. (Doc. 149, at p. 6.) Plaintiff again pointed to his limited law library access as evidence of his difficulty litigating his case. (Doc. 149, p. 11.)

On March 14, 2011, Defendants filed responses to Plaintiff's March 2, 2011, "objection/response" asserting that, to the extent the filing represented a renewed Rule 56(f) motion, it was insufficient and should be denied. (Docs. 150, 151.)

On May 4, 2011, Defendants Heller and Wheatly submitted a supplemental memorandum of points and authorities in support of their motion for summary judgment. (Doc. 155, 156.) Defendants asserted that Plaintiff's deposition was completed on April 12, 2011, and submitted portions of the deposition transcript indicating that Plaintiff declined pain medication upon receiving medical treatment for his injuries arising out of the events that occurred on March 3, 2008.

On May 12, 2011, Defendant Barrios also filed a supplemental memorandum of points and authorities in support of his motion for summary judgment, which referenced portions of Plaintiff's April 12, 2011, deposition indicating that Plaintiff declined pain medication upon receiving medical treatment for his injuries arising out of the events that occurred on March 3, 2008. (Doc. 160.)

On May 17, 2011, Plaintiff filed a motion for a 60-day extension of time to respond to these supplemental points and authorities, which is ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

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