1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ROBERT CURTIS WILLIAMS, III, No. 2:21-cv-0921 KJN P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 ACEVES, 15 Defendant. 16 17 Plaintiff is a state prisoner, proceeding pro se. Defendant’s motion for summary judgment 18 is pending, and plaintiff’s opposition was stayed pending briefing on whether plaintiff had 19 received his legal materials. On November 17, 2022, plaintiff filed an opposition to defendant’s 20 reply to the motion for summary judgment; on December 9, 2022, defendant filed an opposition 21 to plaintiff’s filing. Plaintiff again seeks to re-open discovery, and now also seeks leave to file an 22 amended complaint.1 As set forth below, upon reconsideration, plaintiff’s motion to reopen 23 discovery is denied. 24 Plaintiff’s Complaint 25 This action proceeds on plaintiff’s verified complaint regarding incidents at California 26 Medical Facility. (ECF No. 1.) In an effort to receive his legal materials, plaintiff alleges that 27
28 1 Plaintiff’s motion to amend will be addressed separately. 1 after informing defendant Aceves of plaintiff’s right to continue his active civil complaint, 2 defendant Aceves began loudly calling plaintiff a child molester and engaged in other explicit 3 name calling in the presence of other inmates to put plaintiff’s life and safety at risk. Then, in 4 response to plaintiff placing his mattress against the window, and rather than attempting to de- 5 escalate the situation, defendant Aceves called an emergency welfare check. Before the 6 emergency team forced their way into plaintiff’s cell, and while plaintiff was attempting to 7 comply with prone down orders, defendant Aceves violently struck plaintiff in the face with 8 Aceves’ baton with the deliberate intent to cause pain and permanent injuries. (ECF No. 1 at 6.) 9 Plaintiff sustained, inter alia, eustachian tube dysfunction, migraines, and nightmares. Plaintiff 10 seeks money damages. 11 Background 12 On June 25, 2021, the court ordered that this case proceed on plaintiff’s complaint against 13 defendant Aceves for alleged retaliation in violation of the First Amendment, and failure to 14 protect plaintiff and excessive force used against plaintiff in violation of the Eighth Amendment.2 15 (ECF No. 8 at 2.) 16 On November 15, 2021, the undersigned issued the discovery and scheduling order; 17 discovery closed on March 18, 2022. (ECF No. 25.) Defendant sought two extensions of the 18 pretrial motions deadline, which expired on September 23, 2022. (ECF No. 33.) 19 Defendant’s motion for summary judgment was filed on September 22, 2022. (ECF No. 20 34.) Plaintiff sought to reopen discovery. (ECF No. 36.) On November 4, 2022, defendant filed 21 an opposition to plaintiff’s motion to reopen discovery and a supplemental response to plaintiff’s 22 putative opposition to the motion for summary judgment. (ECF No. 37.) On November 9, 2022, 23 plaintiff’s motion to reopen discovery was denied, and the motion for summary judgment was 24 deferred until after plaintiff received his legal materials. 25 Shortly thereafter, plaintiff filed a document styled “Plaintiff’s Opposition, to defendant’s 26 opposition to plaintiff’s motion and supplemental response, to defendant’s motion for summary 27 2 Plaintiff also claimed a violation of due process, but included no facts implicating such 28 violation. 1 judgment,” signed by plaintiff on November 14, 2022. In addition to opposing the summary 2 judgment motion, plaintiff acknowledged receipt of the November 9, 2022 order, and seeks 3 reconsideration of the order denying his prior motion to reopen discovery. (ECF No. 39 at 19.) 4 Plaintiff sought leave to serve requests for admissions (ECF No. 39 at 8), and included a motion 5 to compel further production of documents (ECF No. 39 at 16). 6 On December 9, 2022, defendant filed an opposition to plaintiff’s filing. Given the 7 court’s last order, defendant objects to plaintiff’s arguments in opposition to the pending motion, 8 and opposes the request for reconsideration of the motion to reopen discovery. (ECF No. 40.) 9 Plaintiff’s Putative Opposition to the Pending Motion 10 On November 9, 2022, the court deferred plaintiff’s opposition to the motion for summary 11 judgment because plaintiff did not have possession of his legal materials. Thus, plaintiff’s 12 arguments opposing the motion are premature and improper. Once the court is apprised of the 13 status of plaintiff’s legal materials, a further order will issue setting a deadline for plaintiff to file 14 an opposition.3 15 Motion for Reconsideration re Motion to Reopen Discovery 16 On November 9, 2022, the undersigned denied plaintiff’s motion to reopen discovery. 17 Plaintiff now asks this court to reconsider the prior order denying the motion to reopen discovery. 18 (ECF No. 39 at 19.) 19 “A motion for reconsideration should not be granted, absent highly unusual 20 circumstances, unless the district court is presented with newly discovered evidence, committed 21 clear error, or if there is an intervening change in the controlling law,” Marlyn Nutraceuticals, 22 Inc. v. Mucos Pharma GmbH & Co., 571 F.3d 873, 880 (9th Cir. 2009) (internal quotations marks 23 and citations omitted), and “[a] party seeking reconsideration must show more than a 24 disagreement with the Court’s decision, and recapitulation . . .” of that which was already 25 considered by the Court in rendering its decision, U.S. v. Westlands Water Dist., 134 F. Supp. 2d 26
27 3 Defense counsel notified the undersigned’s courtroom deputy that as of December 9, 2022, plaintiff’s legal property was in transit to plaintiff at California Health Care Facility. Defendant 28 is granted an extension of time to notify the court that plaintiff has received his legal property. 1 1111, 1131 (E.D. Cal. 2001) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Additionally, 2 pursuant to this Court’s Local Rules, when filing a motion for reconsideration of an order, a party 3 must show “what new or different facts or circumstances are claimed to exist which did not exist 4 or were not shown upon such prior motion, or what other grounds exist for the motion.” Local 5 Rule 230(j). 6 Discussion 7 In his motion for reconsideration of the court’s order denying his motion to reopen 8 discovery, plaintiff now argues that his medical condition was chronic and he was in unbearable 9 pain in the months leading up to his surgery. Plaintiff alleges that in early February of 2022 he 10 suffered food poisoning which drained plaintiff of energy and his ability to concentrate for a long 11 period of time. He claims this went on for four months until he collapsed from the shut-down of 12 his kidneys which were operating at ten percent. Plaintiff was hospitalized outside the prison 13 from June 2022 until July 2022, and was not in possession of his legal property. Plaintiff 14 provided supporting exhibits which he claims were submitted with his original request but 15 somehow did not make it to the court. (ECF No. 39 at 20.) 16 But plaintiff again does not explain his failure to seek leave of court, either to request to 17 stay this action pending his alleged health crisis, or to grant him an extension of the discovery 18 deadline that expired on March 18, 2022. Indeed, he was able to propound discovery to 19 defendant, to which defendant responded in February of 2022 (ECF No. 38 at 4), demonstrating 20 that plaintiff could have sought court assistance at that time. Moreover, in his Fresno case, 21 plaintiff entered into a stipulation with opposing counsel on March 14, 2022, and signed a 22 declaration on May 12, 2022, confirming he turned over all relevant documents to defendants on 23 April 21, 2022, and sought an order scheduling the case for trial. Williams v. Castro, No. 1:20- 24 cv-1617 SAB (E.D.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ROBERT CURTIS WILLIAMS, III, No. 2:21-cv-0921 KJN P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 ACEVES, 15 Defendant. 16 17 Plaintiff is a state prisoner, proceeding pro se. Defendant’s motion for summary judgment 18 is pending, and plaintiff’s opposition was stayed pending briefing on whether plaintiff had 19 received his legal materials. On November 17, 2022, plaintiff filed an opposition to defendant’s 20 reply to the motion for summary judgment; on December 9, 2022, defendant filed an opposition 21 to plaintiff’s filing. Plaintiff again seeks to re-open discovery, and now also seeks leave to file an 22 amended complaint.1 As set forth below, upon reconsideration, plaintiff’s motion to reopen 23 discovery is denied. 24 Plaintiff’s Complaint 25 This action proceeds on plaintiff’s verified complaint regarding incidents at California 26 Medical Facility. (ECF No. 1.) In an effort to receive his legal materials, plaintiff alleges that 27
28 1 Plaintiff’s motion to amend will be addressed separately. 1 after informing defendant Aceves of plaintiff’s right to continue his active civil complaint, 2 defendant Aceves began loudly calling plaintiff a child molester and engaged in other explicit 3 name calling in the presence of other inmates to put plaintiff’s life and safety at risk. Then, in 4 response to plaintiff placing his mattress against the window, and rather than attempting to de- 5 escalate the situation, defendant Aceves called an emergency welfare check. Before the 6 emergency team forced their way into plaintiff’s cell, and while plaintiff was attempting to 7 comply with prone down orders, defendant Aceves violently struck plaintiff in the face with 8 Aceves’ baton with the deliberate intent to cause pain and permanent injuries. (ECF No. 1 at 6.) 9 Plaintiff sustained, inter alia, eustachian tube dysfunction, migraines, and nightmares. Plaintiff 10 seeks money damages. 11 Background 12 On June 25, 2021, the court ordered that this case proceed on plaintiff’s complaint against 13 defendant Aceves for alleged retaliation in violation of the First Amendment, and failure to 14 protect plaintiff and excessive force used against plaintiff in violation of the Eighth Amendment.2 15 (ECF No. 8 at 2.) 16 On November 15, 2021, the undersigned issued the discovery and scheduling order; 17 discovery closed on March 18, 2022. (ECF No. 25.) Defendant sought two extensions of the 18 pretrial motions deadline, which expired on September 23, 2022. (ECF No. 33.) 19 Defendant’s motion for summary judgment was filed on September 22, 2022. (ECF No. 20 34.) Plaintiff sought to reopen discovery. (ECF No. 36.) On November 4, 2022, defendant filed 21 an opposition to plaintiff’s motion to reopen discovery and a supplemental response to plaintiff’s 22 putative opposition to the motion for summary judgment. (ECF No. 37.) On November 9, 2022, 23 plaintiff’s motion to reopen discovery was denied, and the motion for summary judgment was 24 deferred until after plaintiff received his legal materials. 25 Shortly thereafter, plaintiff filed a document styled “Plaintiff’s Opposition, to defendant’s 26 opposition to plaintiff’s motion and supplemental response, to defendant’s motion for summary 27 2 Plaintiff also claimed a violation of due process, but included no facts implicating such 28 violation. 1 judgment,” signed by plaintiff on November 14, 2022. In addition to opposing the summary 2 judgment motion, plaintiff acknowledged receipt of the November 9, 2022 order, and seeks 3 reconsideration of the order denying his prior motion to reopen discovery. (ECF No. 39 at 19.) 4 Plaintiff sought leave to serve requests for admissions (ECF No. 39 at 8), and included a motion 5 to compel further production of documents (ECF No. 39 at 16). 6 On December 9, 2022, defendant filed an opposition to plaintiff’s filing. Given the 7 court’s last order, defendant objects to plaintiff’s arguments in opposition to the pending motion, 8 and opposes the request for reconsideration of the motion to reopen discovery. (ECF No. 40.) 9 Plaintiff’s Putative Opposition to the Pending Motion 10 On November 9, 2022, the court deferred plaintiff’s opposition to the motion for summary 11 judgment because plaintiff did not have possession of his legal materials. Thus, plaintiff’s 12 arguments opposing the motion are premature and improper. Once the court is apprised of the 13 status of plaintiff’s legal materials, a further order will issue setting a deadline for plaintiff to file 14 an opposition.3 15 Motion for Reconsideration re Motion to Reopen Discovery 16 On November 9, 2022, the undersigned denied plaintiff’s motion to reopen discovery. 17 Plaintiff now asks this court to reconsider the prior order denying the motion to reopen discovery. 18 (ECF No. 39 at 19.) 19 “A motion for reconsideration should not be granted, absent highly unusual 20 circumstances, unless the district court is presented with newly discovered evidence, committed 21 clear error, or if there is an intervening change in the controlling law,” Marlyn Nutraceuticals, 22 Inc. v. Mucos Pharma GmbH & Co., 571 F.3d 873, 880 (9th Cir. 2009) (internal quotations marks 23 and citations omitted), and “[a] party seeking reconsideration must show more than a 24 disagreement with the Court’s decision, and recapitulation . . .” of that which was already 25 considered by the Court in rendering its decision, U.S. v. Westlands Water Dist., 134 F. Supp. 2d 26
27 3 Defense counsel notified the undersigned’s courtroom deputy that as of December 9, 2022, plaintiff’s legal property was in transit to plaintiff at California Health Care Facility. Defendant 28 is granted an extension of time to notify the court that plaintiff has received his legal property. 1 1111, 1131 (E.D. Cal. 2001) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Additionally, 2 pursuant to this Court’s Local Rules, when filing a motion for reconsideration of an order, a party 3 must show “what new or different facts or circumstances are claimed to exist which did not exist 4 or were not shown upon such prior motion, or what other grounds exist for the motion.” Local 5 Rule 230(j). 6 Discussion 7 In his motion for reconsideration of the court’s order denying his motion to reopen 8 discovery, plaintiff now argues that his medical condition was chronic and he was in unbearable 9 pain in the months leading up to his surgery. Plaintiff alleges that in early February of 2022 he 10 suffered food poisoning which drained plaintiff of energy and his ability to concentrate for a long 11 period of time. He claims this went on for four months until he collapsed from the shut-down of 12 his kidneys which were operating at ten percent. Plaintiff was hospitalized outside the prison 13 from June 2022 until July 2022, and was not in possession of his legal property. Plaintiff 14 provided supporting exhibits which he claims were submitted with his original request but 15 somehow did not make it to the court. (ECF No. 39 at 20.) 16 But plaintiff again does not explain his failure to seek leave of court, either to request to 17 stay this action pending his alleged health crisis, or to grant him an extension of the discovery 18 deadline that expired on March 18, 2022. Indeed, he was able to propound discovery to 19 defendant, to which defendant responded in February of 2022 (ECF No. 38 at 4), demonstrating 20 that plaintiff could have sought court assistance at that time. Moreover, in his Fresno case, 21 plaintiff entered into a stipulation with opposing counsel on March 14, 2022, and signed a 22 declaration on May 12, 2022, confirming he turned over all relevant documents to defendants on 23 April 21, 2022, and sought an order scheduling the case for trial. Williams v. Castro, No. 1:20- 24 cv-1617 SAB (E.D. Cal.) (ECF Nos. 40 at 3; 43 at 2.)4 Also, the newly-provided medical record 25 //// 26 4 A court may take judicial notice of court records. See, e.g., Bennett v. Medtronic, Inc., 285 27 F.3d 801, 803 n.2 (9th Cir. 2002) (“[W]e may take notice of proceedings in other courts, both within and without the federal judicial system, if those proceedings have a direct relation to 28 matters at issue”) (internal quotation omitted). 1 || dated June 20, 2022, states plaintiff had nausea with vomiting “for the last week.” (ECF No. 39 2 | at 34.) 3 Filings and responses by plaintiff belie his alleged inability to conduct discovery in 4 | February or March of 2022, or to earlier seek an extension of the discovery deadline. The 5 || undersigned does not find the newly-provided documents support plaintiff's request to reopen 6 || discovery. Upon reconsideration, plaintiff's motion to reopen discovery is denied. 7 || Motion to Compel Production of Documents 8 Plaintiff's motion (ECF No. 39 at 16) is untimely and is therefore denied. 9 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 10 1. Defendant is granted fourteen days from the date of this order to file a notice with the 11 | court that plaintiff has possession of, or access to, his legal property. 12 2. Plaintiff's arguments in opposition to the pending motion for summary judgment are 13 || disregarded; once plaintiff has access to his legal property, the court will issue an order setting a 14 | new briefing schedule on defendant’s motion for summary judgment. 15 3. Upon reconsideration (ECF No. 39), plaintiff's motion to reopen discovery is denied. 16 4. Plaintiff's motion to compel discovery (ECF No. 39) is denied as untimely. 17 | Dated: December 19, 2022 i Aectl Aharon 19 KENDALL J. NE Jewiwill092Lxec UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28