IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
September 8, 2011
MICHAEL BAKER, PLAINTIFF,
PEREZ, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Kendall J. Newman United States Magistrate Judge
Plaintiff is a state prisoner, proceeding without counsel, with a civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Pending before the court is plaintiff's September 2, 2011 motion to stay defendants' summary judgment motion or, in the alternative, for an extension of time to file an opposition. Defendants filed their summary judgment motion on August 10, 2011.
In the pending motion, plaintiff presents several grounds in support of his request. First, plaintiff alleges that his motion to compel, to which defendants filed their opposition on June 20, 2011, is still pending. On August 24, 2011, the undersigned granted in part and denied in part this motion to compel. On September 7, 2011, defendants filed supplemental responses to several discovery requests, in accordance with the August 24, 2011 order. Therefore, plaintiff's motion to compel is no longer pending.
Plaintiff next alleges that due to inadequate law library access, he has not had an adequate opportunity to conduct discovery. The record reflects that plaintiff has conducted extensive discovery. The twenty-seven page August 24, 2011 order addressing plaintiff's motion to compel addressed 53 requests for admissions, nine requests for production of documents and twenty-four interrogatories. Clearly, plaintiff has conducted extensive discovery. Plaintiff's request to conduct additional discovery is not well-supported.
Plaintiff next alleges that he requires additional time to obtain certified documents in support of his opposition to defendants' summary judgment motion. Plaintiff alleges that prison officials have refused to certify documents from his medical records.
Plaintiff may submit documents from his medical records in his opposition to defendants' summary judgment motion. If defendants object to these documents on grounds that they are not certified, the court will consider the issue of certification at that time.
Plaintiff next alleges that he requires additional time to contact three inmate witnesses. Plaintiff has had adequate time and opportunity to contact inmate witnesses.
For the reasons discussed above, the undersigned finds that plaintiff has not presented adequate grounds to stay defendants' summary judgment motion or to grant plaintiff a lengthy extension of time to file an opposition.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. Plaintiff's motion to stay and for extension of time (Dkt. No. 74) is denied;
2. Plaintiff's opposition to defendants' summary judgment motion is due within twenty-eight days of the date of this order.
© 1992-2011 VersusLaw Inc.