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.

Leroy Franklin v. T. Felker

May 1, 2013

LEROY FRANKLIN, PLAINTIFF,
v.
T. FELKER, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: Kendall J. Newman United States Magistrate Judge

ORDER

I. Introduction

Plaintiff is proceeding without counsel with this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff alleges that defendant Hackworth placed him on contraband watch in retaliation for plaintiff complaining about defendant's actions. Pending before the court are plaintiff's motion to conduct additional discovery (dkt. no. 33) and motion for a copy of his deposition transcript (dkt. no. 32). For the following reasons, these motions are denied.

II. Background

On January 12, 2012, the court issued a scheduling order setting the discovery cutoff for May 4, 2012, and the dispositive motion cut-off for July 27, 2012. (Dkt. No. 13.) On June 18, 2012, plaintiff filed an unopposed motion for a sixty day extension of time to file a dispositive motion. (Dkt. No. 14.) On July 18, 2012, the court granted this motion, extending the dispositive motion cut-off to September 27, 2012. (Dkt. No. 15.)

On July 18, 2012, plaintiff filed a motion to re-open discovery. (Dkt. No. 16.) Plaintiff also filed a motion to compel defendants to provide him with a copy of his deposition transcript. (Dkt. No. 17.) On August 6, 2012, the court denied these motions. (Dkt. No. 20.) Regarding the motion to re-open discovery, the court found that plaintiff was not diligent in seeking to comply with the discovery cut-off date. (Id.)

On September 27, 2012, defendant filed a summary judgment motion. (Dkt. No. 22.) Defendant argued that he was entitled to summary judgment because he did not have the authority to place plaintiff on contraband watch. (Id.) On October 15, 2012, plaintiff filed a motion for a thirty day extension of time to file his opposition. (Dkt. No. 25.) On October 23, 2012, the court granted plaintiff an extension of thirty days to file his opposition. (Dkt. No. 26.)

On November 28, 2012, plaintiff filed a second motion for extension of time to file his opposition. (Dkt. No. 27.) On December 7, 2012, the court granted plaintiff thirty days to file his opposition, and further ordered that no additional requests for extension of time to file an opposition would be granted. (Dkt. No. 28.) Thirty days passed and plaintiff did not file his opposition. However, on February 11, 2013, plaintiff filed a notice of change of address stating that he had been unable to file his opposition due to a transfer to an out of state facility. (Dkt. No. 30.) Accordingly, on February 20, 2013, the court granted plaintiff an additional thirty days to file his opposition. (Dkt. No. 31.)

Instead of filing his opposition, plaintiff filed the pending motions.

III. Motion For Additional Discovery

In the motion for additional discovery, plaintiff alleges that he was unable to obtain sufficient evidence during his first round of discovery with defendants. Plaintiff alleges that he does not now possess the evidence he requires to defeat defendant's summary judgment motion. In particular, plaintiff alleges that he must conduct additional discovery in order to obtain evidence showing that defendant Hackworth was involved in the decision to place him on contraband watch.

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(d) provides,

If a non-movant shows by affidavit or declaration that, for specified reasons, it cannot present facts essential to ...


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.