Edmisten v. Pickens

Opinion

2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 3 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 4 JUSTIN EDMISTEN, Case No. 3:22-cv-00439-ART-CLB 5 Plaintiff, ORDER OVERRULING OBJECTIONS 6 v. TO DENIALS OF PREMATURE MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY 7 PICKENS, et al., JUDGEMENT (ECF NOS. 24, 41)

8 Defendants.

9 10 Plaintiff Justin Edmisten brings this case against several employees of Ely 11 State Prison, alleging Defendants used excessive force against him, or oversaw 12 the use of excessive force against him, which resulted in his bloodied face, vision 13 impairment, ear damage, and other serious injuries. Before the Court are two 14 Objections (ECF Nos. 24, 41) to Magistrate Judge Carla Baldwin’s Orders (ECF 15 Nos. 23, 36), which deny Mr. Edmisten’s Motions for Summary Judgement 16 because they were filed too early in the litigation process. This Court agrees with 17 Judge Baldwin’s reasoning, so it overrules Mr. Edmisten’s Objections and 18 upholds Judge Baldwin’s orders. 19 When a magistrate judge makes a “non-dispositive” decision—one that 20 does permanently resolve aspects of the case—a district judge may overturn that 21 decision if it is “clearly erroneous or contrary to law.” Bhan v. NME Hospitals, Inc., 22 929 F.2d 2404, 1414 (9th Cir. 1991); 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A); Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 72(a); LR IB 3-1(a). Though decisions on motions for summary judgment are 24 usually dispositive, they are not dispositive when, like here, the plaintiff is free to 25 seek summary judgement again at a later date. 26 A party against whom summary judgement is sought “must have had 27 sufficient time and opportunity for discovery before a moving party [can seek 28 1 || summary judgement].” Nissan Fire & Marine Ins. Co., Ltd. v. Fritz Companies, Inc., 2 || 210 F.3d 1099, 1105-06 (9th Cir. 2000) (citing Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 3 || 317, 322, (1986)). Although Fed. R. Civ. P. 56 allows a party to file a motion for 4 || summary judgment “at any time,” that rule also allows the court to deny the 5 || motion or order a continuance for the opposing party to pursue discovery. Fed. 6 || R. Civ. P. 56 (Advisory Committee's Notes (2010 Amendments Subdivision (b)). 7 Mr. Edmisten filed his first Motion for Summary Judgement before 8 || discovery began in this case. (ECF No. 22.) He filed his second motion just one 9 || month into discovery. (ECF No. 35.) This did not give either side enough time to 10 || develop evidence in support of their claims. If neither side can develop evidence, 11 || then a motion for summary judgement—which asks the court to determine that 12 || one side has insufficient evidence as a matter of law—is inappropriate. See Nissan 13 || Fire, 210 F.3d at 1105-06. 14 The Court wants to be clear: this Order does not bar Mr. Edmisten from 15 || filing a motion for summary judgment in the future. Nor does it say anything 16 || about the strength of Mr. Edmisten’s claims. Mr. Edmisten will have to wait for 17 || an appropriate time to file his motion. A motion for summary judgement would 18 || be more appropriate once discovery has ended or is at least significantly 19 || underway. The Court reminds Mr. Edmisten that discovery is set to complete on 20 || January 15, 2024. (ECF No. 28.) 21 It is therefore ordered that Mr. Edmisten’s Objections (ECF Nos. 24, 41) to 22 || Judge Baldwin’s Orders dismissing his Motions for Summary Judgement as 23 || premature are overruled. 24 Dated this 26th day of October 2023. 25 26 Ans paid iden 27 ANNE R. TRAUM 28 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE