United States District Court, E.D. California
ORDER REGARDING PLAINTIFF'S MOTIONS [ECF NOS. 39, 45, 47, 48, 53, 62,
64, 74, 75, 82, 83, 84, 87, 91] ORDER REGARDING DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO TAKE
DEPOSITION AS MOOT [ECF NO. 41] ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO REFILING [ECF NO. 68]
DENNIS L. BECK, Magistrate Judge.
Plaintiff Robin Dasenbrook ("Plaintiff") is a California state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action is proceeding against Defendants Enenmoh, Page, Perez and blonde Doe 1 for claims of negligence and deliberate indifference to a serious medical need in violation of the Eighth Amendment.
On November 29, 2012, Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint. On May 13, 2013, the Court determined that service was appropriate and directed the U.S. Marshal Service to serve the amended complaint on Defendants Enenmoh, Page, and Perez. On August 14, 2013, Defendant Enenmoh filed a waiver of service. On September 10, 2013, Defendant Enenmoh filed an answer. On September 11, 2013, the Court issued a discovery and scheduling order. The discovery cut-off date was set for February 10, 2014, and the dispositive motion deadline was set for April 9, 2014. On February 5, 2014, Defendant Page filed a waiver of service with the Court. According to the waiver, the U.S. Marshal attempted service by mail on June 12, 2013, but it proved unsuccessful. The U.S. Marshal made a second attempt to forward the mail on January 7, 2014, which did prove successful. On March 7, 2014, Defendant Page filed an answer to the amended complaint. On May 9, 2014, Defendants Enenmoh and Page filed a motion for summary judgment. Plaintiff filed an opposition on June 9, 2014. Defendants filed a reply to the opposition on July 14, 2014.
In addition to the above, Plaintiff has filed numerous motions, which the Court will now address in turn.
I. Motion for Extension of Time [ECF No. 39]
On December 19, 2013, Plaintiff filed a motion for an enlargement of time regarding the service of process on the defendants. Defendants did not file an opposition. Plaintiff stated he had heard nothing concerning the service of Defendants Page and Perez since the Court issued its order on May 13, 2013, directing the U.S. Marshal to serve Defendants Enenmoh, Page, and Perez. Plaintiff is advised that Defendant Enenmoh executed a waiver of service of summons on August 14, 2013, and filed an answer to the complaint on September 10, 2013. [ECF Nos. 23, 38.] As to Defendant Perez, the summons was returned unexecuted on December 30, 2013. [ECF No. 40.] According to the Process Receipt and Return, Defendant Perez could not be located without more information since there are numerous Perez in the Department of Corrections' database. [ECF No. 40.] A waiver of service was returned executed by Defendant Page on February 5, 2014. [ECF No. 44.] The waiver of service was initially sent on June 12, 2013, with no result. [ECF No. 44.] The waiver was then reattempted on January 7, 2014, and it was executed on February 3, 2014, by Defendant's counsel. [ECF No. 44.] With respect to blonde nurse Doe #1, the Court did not direct service on this individual insofar as the individual remains unidentified. Therefore, there is no cause for an enlargement of time at present. Plaintiff's motion will be denied.
II. Motions for Copy of Deposition Transcript [ECF Nos. 45, 74]
Plaintiff has filed motions to obtain a copy of his deposition transcript. Defendants did not file an opposition. Plaintiff is not entitled to a free copy of his deposition transcript. Fed.R.Civ.P. 30(f)(3). Plaintiff is entitled only to review the transcript and make changes, if he made a request for review before the completion of the deposition. Fed.R.Civ.P. 30(e)(1). If Plaintiff made a timely request, the Court requests that Defendants ensure the review to which he is entitled occurs. Nevertheless, Plaintiff's motions for a free copy of the deposition transcript are DENIED.
III. Motion for Contempt [ECF No. 47]
On February 18, 2014, Plaintiff filed a motion to find Defendant Page in contempt of court. Defendants did not file an opposition. Plaintiff complains that Defendant Page was mailed a summons and complaint on June 12, 2013, and Defendant Page did not respond. Plaintiff states that over the next several months he attempted to ascertain the status of service on Page but to no avail. Plaintiff states he only found out that Page had been located when he received Defendants' motion for an extension of time to serve responses to Plaintiff's discovery requests. Plaintiff claims Defendant Page violated court scheduling orders and should be found in contempt of court. Plaintiff requests money damages be awarded him.
As noted above, a waiver of service was mailed to Defendant Page on June 12, 2013. The attempt was unsuccessful and the U.S. Marshal Service forwarded the waiver again on January 7, 2014. Defendant Page acknowledged receipt of the waiver and executed the waiver on February 3, 2014, through her attorney. Defendant Page then filed an answer to the complaint on March 7, 2014. The Court understands Plaintiff's frustration in the delay; however, the Court does not find any cause to find Defendant Page in contempt. The first attempt by the U.S. Marshal Service at service proved unsuccessful but there is no reason to believe this was due to Defendant Page's malfeasance. Accordingly, Plaintiff's motion to find Defendant Page in contempt is denied. Plaintiff's concerns as to the timing of Defendant Page's entry into the action will be addressed by reopening discovery as to Defendant Page, by separate order.
IV. Motion for Judicial Notice and Default Judgment [ECF Nos. 48, 53]
On February 18, 2014, Plaintiff filed a motion requesting judicial notice, a motion requesting an order to answer interrogatories and admissions, and motion for default judgment. Defendants did not file an opposition. Plaintiff again details his frustrations in attempting to determine the status of service on Defendants Page and Perez. Plaintiff states that it was not until January 30, 2014, that he found out that Defendant Page had been found and was being represented by the Attorney General. Plaintiff complains that this delay has prejudiced him because Defendant Page did not enter the action until after the court-ordered discovery cut-off date, and this has frustrated his attempts to serve discovery on Defendant Page.
Plaintiff first asks that the Court take judicial notice of the actions of the parties. Plaintiff is advised that the Court is well aware of the actions of the parties ...