Allen v. City of Reno

• Court: District Court, D. Nevada
• Decided: November 16, 2022
• Docket: 3:20-cv-00432
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 3 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 4 NATHANIEL D. ALLEN, Case No. 3:20-cv-00432-ART-CSD 5 Plaintiff, ORDER ON MOTION FOR 6 v. SUMMARY JUDGMENT

7 CITY OF RENO, et al.,

8 Defendants.

9 Before the Court is Defendant Jacob Kinkade’s motion for summary 10 judgment (ECF No. 33). Defendant Kinkade bases his motion for summary 11 judgment upon pro se Plaintiff Nathaniel D. Allen’s failure to respond to a set of 12 requests for admissions served upon Plaintiff on July 20, 2021, which are deemed 13 admitted by virtue of Plaintiff’s failure to respond pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 14 36(a)(3). Plaintiff explains in his response to Defendant Kinkade’s motion for 15 summary judgment that he did not understand the requests for admissions and 16 did not respond to them because he thought that responding to them would 17 constitute consent to an offer of judgment which was served upon Plaintiff at the 18 same time. (ECF No. 35.) Because Plaintiff is proceeding pro se and because the 19 requests for admissions did not notify Plaintiff of the effect of failing to respond 20 to them, the Court extends the time for Plaintiff to answer Defendant Kinkade’s 21 requests for admissions and denies Defendant Kinkade's motion for summary 22 judgment without prejudice as premature. 23 I. DISCUSSION 24 Plaintiff’s amended complaint seeks compensatory damages against 25 Defendant Kinkade individually and against the City of Reno for failure to train 26 and supervise Defendant Kinkade. (ECF No. 9.) The Court screened Plaintiff’s 27 amended complaint and dismissed the claim against the City of Reno without 28 1 prejudice, allowing the claim against Defendant Kinkade to proceed. (ECF No. 2 15.) The Court issued a scheduling order which set a discovery cutoff date of 3 September 21, 2021. (ECF No. 19.) 4 On July 20, 2021, Defendant Kinkade served upon Plaintiff a set of 5 requests for admissions. (ECF No. 33.) According to Plaintiff, at this time 6 Defendant Kinkade served upon Plaintiff a total of six items: (1) a request for 7 production of documents; (2) the set of requests for admissions at issue; (3) a 8 stipulation for dismissal with prejudice; (4) a release of all claims form; (5) a W-9 9 form; and (6) an offer of judgement in the amount of $500. (ECF No. 35.) Plaintiff 10 explains that he mistakenly thought that the requests for admissions were related 11 to the offer to settle the case and that by responding to them, he would be 12 accepting Defendant Kincade’s offer of judgment, which he did not want to do. 13 (Id.) Defendant Kincade’s requests for admissions did not contain any language 14 notifying or warning Plaintiff that failure to respond to the requests for 15 admissions would entail that the matters would be deemed admitted. (ECF No. 16 33-1.) 17 This issue was considered in Diggs v. Keller, 181 F.R.D. 468, 469 (D. Nev. 18 1998). In Diggs, a pro se prisoner plaintiff faced a summary judgment motion 19 from the defendants based on admissions which were deemed admitted due to 20 the plaintiff’s failure to respond to a set of requests for admissions. Id. The 21 requests for admissions did not advise the plaintiff that failure to respond would 22 entail that the matters in the requests would be deemed admitted. Id. The plaintiff 23 explained that he did not respond to the requests for admissions based on the 24 mistaken thought that he could answer the requests for admissions in person at 25 an oral deposition. Id. 26 Citing Klingele v. Eikenberry, 849 F.2d 409, 411–12 (9th Cir. 1988), the 27 court in Diggs held that “pro se prisoners are entitled to notice that matters found 28 in requests for admission will be deemed admitted unless responded to within 30 1 || days after such requests have been served.” Id. (“To hold otherwise would allow 2 || parties opposing pro se prisoner complaints to use Rule 36 procedures as a snare 3 || which prevents pro se prisoners from opposing summary judgment.”). Diggs is 4 || instructive here because Defendant Kinkade’s requests for admissions did not 5 || notify or warn Plaintiff, who is pro se, of the consequences of not responding. The 6 || Court will grant Plaintiff additional time to respond to the requests for admissions 7 || and advise him of the necessity of answering. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 36(a)(3) 8 || (authorizing court to extend or shorten time to respond to requests for 9 || admissions). In light of the extension of time granted to Plaintiff, the Court will 10 || deny Defendant Kinkade’s motion for summary judgment without prejudice as 11 || premature. 12 || I. CONCLUSION 13 It is therefore ordered that Defendant Kinkade’s motion for summary 14 || judgment (ECF No. 33) is denied without prejudice. 15 It is further ordered that Plaintiff Allen shall have 30 days from the date 16 || this order is served to respond to Defendant Kinkade’s requests for admissions. 17 || Plaintiff is advised and notified that pursuant to Rule 36 of the Federal Rules of 18 || Civil Procedure that the matters contained in Defendant Kinkade’s requests for 19 || admissions shall be deemed admitted unless the requests are responded to within 20 || 30 days after this order is served upon Plaintiff. 21 22 DATED THIS 16t day of November 2022. 23 24 jun 25 Aru 26 ANNE R. TRAUM UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 27 28