Davis v. Saidro

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 RONNELL DAVIS, Case No.: 3:18-cv-02838-LAB-WVG CDCR #V-72307, 12 ORDER: Plaintiff, 13 vs. 1) DENYING MOTION FOR 14 EXTENSION OF TIME [Dkt. 22]; LUZIMINDA SAIDRO; P.J. DULATRE, 15 Defendants. 2) ADOPTING REPORT & 16 RECOMMENDATION [Dkt. 21]; and 17 3) GRANTING MOTION FOR 18 SUMMARY JUDGMENT [Dkt. 12] 19 20 21 22 Plaintiff Ronnell Davis, currently incarcerated at Kern Valley State Prison 23 (“KVSP”) in Delano, California, filed a Complaint claiming that Defendants 24 Luziminda Saidro and P.J. Dulatre, physicians working at the Richard J. Donovan 25 Correctional Facility (“RJD”) where Davis was previously confined, violated Davis’s 26 constitutional rights through deliberate indifference to his medical needs. Davis 27 alleges that Defendants stopped administering Coumadin (a brand of the drug 28 warfarin), an anticoagulant prescribed to address Davis’s history of deep vein 1 thrombosis and pulmonary embolism. Defendants moved for summary judgment 2 on April 30, 2020. (Dkt. 12.) 3 They contend that cessation of warfarin didn’t result from indifference but 4 medical necessity. Affidavits and medical records supporting the motion for 5 summary judgment evidence that, after a blood test showed and symptoms 6 suggested that Davis’s blood wasn’t clotting properly, he refused to submit to 7 further blood tests intended to evaluate whether the warfarin was doing more harm 8 than good. 9 Since that time, Davis has sought three extensions of time to respond. In 10 declarations accompanying those motions, Davis states that he has not had 11 physical access to the KVSP law library since Defendants filed their summary 12 judgment motion nine months ago. (Dkt. 15 at 2; Dkt. 19 at 2; Dkt. 22 at 2). 13 Defendants, via a declaration from the KVSP’s Senior Librarian, have 14 informed the Court that Davis has had access to library paging services throughout 15 the pandemic—inmates can request photocopies of documents, copies of cases, 16 statutes, or other materials if they provide a precise citation. KVSP has records of 17 only one request from Davis for either form of access while the summary judgment 18 motion has been pending, though. 19 A court has discretion to determine that a movant has failed to demonstrate 20 good cause for an enlargement of time and, on that basis, refuse to grant an 21 extension. Ahanchian v. Xenon Pictures, Inc., 624 F.3d 1253, 1258 (9th Cir. 2010). 22 Because the extension isn’t a matter of right, the movant can’t rely on the pendency 23 of his motion to avoid the consequences of missing the deadline—a court denying 24 that motion for extension of time can leave the old deadline in place. See, e.g., 25 Markham v. Pima County, 2019 WL 1099815 (D. Ariz. Mar. 8, 2019) (denying 26 motions for extension of time and adopting report and recommendation granting 27 summary judgment), aff’d, 821 F.3d Appx. 716 (9th Cir. 2020). 28 1 Davis had over eight months to prepare a response to the motion for 2 ||Summary judgment. His library access has been limited during that period, but only 3 a manner that would slow his response, not prevent it. He hasn’t used the ample 4 he had to respond, so he hasn’t established good cause to extend his deadline 5 further. The Motion for Extension is DENIED. (Dkt. 22.) 6 Further extension under these circumstances doesn’t serve the end of a 7 || “just, speedy, and inexpensive determination” of this action. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 1. 8 || The prior response deadline of January 19, 2021 remains in effect. 9 Because Davis didn’t respond by that deadline, the Court proceeds to 10 ||consider the Motion for Summary Judgment and Magistrate Gallo’s Report and 11 |}Recommendation on the current record. Upon review of the briefing and exhibits, 12 ||the Court finds the R&R well-reasoned and agrees with its conclusion that 13 ||Defendants are entitled to summary judgment on Davis’s claim against each of 14 |/them. The Court ADOPTS the R&R, (Dkt. 21), and GRANTS Defendants’ motion 15 summary judgment. (Dkt. 12.) 16 The Clerk is directed to enter judgment in favor of Defendants and close the 17 ||case. 18 IT IS SO ORDERED. 19 20 Dated: February 26, 2021 / wif Af. (Boy lV 21 Hon. Larry Alan Burns 99 United States District Judge 23 24 25 26 27 28 3 ae mmm □□ kanes