(PC) Young v. Corcoran State Prison Visiting Staff

Opinion

1 2 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 4 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 5 6 GALE J. YOUNG, et al. No. 1:24-cv-00776-SAB (PC) 7 Plaintiffs, ORDER DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT TO RANDOMLY ASSIGN A DISTRICT JUDGE 8 v. TO THIS ACTION 9 CORCORAN STATE PRISON VISITING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION STAFF, RECOMMENDING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION 10 FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT BE DENIED Defendants. 11 (ECF No. 29) 12 Plaintiff is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this action filed pursuant to 42 13 U.S.C. § 1983. 14 Currently before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment, filed April 11, 15 2025. Plaintiff’s motion should be denied. 16 I. 17 DISCUSSION 18 On October 29, 2024, the Court found that Plaintiff’s first amended complaint stated a 19 cognizable claim for improper denial of regular visitation privileges with his family while 20 detained at Corcoran State Prison against the Doe Defendant(s). (ECF No. 16.) 21 The Court allowed Plaintiff to issue a subpoena to Corcoran State Prison in order to 22 identify the Doe Defendants described in the operative complaint. (ECF No. 15, 16.) On 23 November 15, 2024, Plaintiff completed and returned the subpoena. (ECF No. 17.) 24 On November 19, 2024, the Court directed service of the subpoena by the United States 25 Marshal on the Litigation Coordinator at Corcoran State Prison providing a thirty-day response 26 deadline.1 (ECF No. 18.) The Court directed that any response and/or responsive documents be 27 28 1 On November 26, 2024, a proof of personal service of the subpoena was returned by the United States Marshal. 1 produced to Plaintiff at his address of record. (Id. at 2.) 2 On February 28, 2025, Plaintiff informed the Court that he had not received any 3 information from the litigation coordinator at Corcoran in response to the served subpoena. (ECF 4 No. 23.) Therefore, on March 7, 2025, the Court allowed the California Office of the Attorney 5 General (OAG) to respond, by way of special appearance, to the status of Plaintiff’s subpoena. 6 (ECF No. 25.) 7 The OAG filed an initial response on March 21, 2025, and a supplemental response on 8 April 4, 2025. (ECF Nos. 26, 27.) Based on the OAG’s response, on April 8, 2025, the Court 9 issued an order for Plaintiff to file a motion to substitute the Doe Defendant(s) within twenty days 10 as is clear that Plaintiff has now received documents responsive to his subpoena request. (ECF 11 No. 28.) 12 In his current motion for summary judgment, Plaintiff contends that prison officials have 13 committed perjury by claiming that documents do not exist to identify the Doe Defendants and he 14 is therefore entitled to summary judgment and damages. (ECF No. 29.) 15 Contrary to Plaintiff’s contention, as stated in the Court’s April 8, 2025, order, responsive 16 documents have been provided to him. (ECF No. 28.) In addition, Plaintiff is not entitled to 17 summary judgment. Notwithstanding the procedural defects, no Defendant has served, discovery 18 as not yet commenced, and Defendants have not had an opportunity to pursue discovery. See, 19 e.g., Baker v. German, No. 1:16-cv-01873-AWI-SAB (PC), 2017 WL 531937, at *1 (E.D. Cal. 20 Feb. 9, 2017) (recommending summary judgment be denied where complaint not yet screened 21 and service of complaint not yet authorized), recommendation adopted 2017 WL 1427028 (E.D. 22 Cal. Apr. 21, 2017); see also Dews v. County of Kern, No. 14-16423, 599 Fed. App’x 681, 682 23 (9th Cir. Mar. 27, 2015) (finding district court properly denied Dews’s motions for summary 24 judgment as premature because a court must first screen a prisoner’s complaint); Williams v. 25 Yuan Chen, No. S-10-1292 CKD P, 2011 WL 4354533, at * 3 (E.D. Cal. Sept. 16, 2011) 26 (denying plaintiff's summary judgment motion as premature where defendant had not yet filed an 27 (ECF No. 19.) 28 1 answer and the court had not issued a discovery order); Moore v. Hubbard, No. CIV S-06-2187 2 | FCD EFB P, 2009 WL 688897, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 13, 2009) (recommending that pre- 3 | discovery motion for summary judgment be denied as premature); Vining v. Runyon, 99 F.3d 4 | 1056, 1058 (11th Cir. 1996) (“A premature decision on summary judgment impermissibly 5 || deprives the [defendants] of their right to utilize the discovery process to discover the facts 6 || necessary to justify their opposition to the motion”). Consequently, Plaintiff's motion for 7 | summary judgment must be denied. 8 Il. 9 ORDER AND RECOMMENDATION 10 Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY ORDERED that the Clerk of Court shall randomly 11 | assign a District Judge to this action. 12 Further, it is HEREBY RECOMMENDED that Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment, 13 | filed on April 11, 2025 (ECF No. 29) be DENIED. 14 This Findings and Recommendation will be submitted to the United States District Judge 15 || assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within fourteen (14) 16 | days after being served with this Findings and Recommendation, Plaintiff may file written 17 | objections with the Court, limited to 15 pages in length, including exhibits. The document should 18 | be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendation.” Plaintiff is 19 || advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may result in the waiver of rights 20 | onappeal. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 838-39 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing Baxter v. 21 | Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)). 22 73 IT IS SO ORDERED. DAM Le 24 | Dated: _April 15, 2025_ OO STANLEY A. BOONE 25 United States Magistrate Judge 26 27 28

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28