Bruce Haney v. A. Nelson , 476 F. App'x 147 ( 2012 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION AUG 21 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
BRUCE PATRICK HANEY, No. 11-16563
Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 1:04-cv-05935-AWI-
SKO
v.
A. L. NELSON; R. SALDANA, AKA R. MEMORANDUM *
Saldano,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Anthony W. Ishii, Chief District Judge, Presiding
Argued and Submitted May 10, 2012
Pasadena, California
Before: PREGERSON, GRABER, and BERZON, Circuit Judges.
Bruce Patrick Haney, a pro se prisoner litigant, appeals the district court’s
order granting a Motion for Summary Judgment brought by correctional officers
A.L. Nelson and R. Saldana. On appeal, Haney contends that the district court
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
abused its discretion by granting summary judgment in favor of the correctional
officers before allowing Haney to complete discovery. We agree.
The district court’s refusal to permit further discovery is reviewed for an
abuse of discretion. Landmark Dev. Corp. v. Chambers Corp., 752 F.2d 369, 373
(9th Cir.1985) (per curiam). “[S]ummary judgment is disfavored where relevant
evidence remains to be discovered, particularly in cases involving confined pro se
plaintiffs.” Jones v. Blanas, 393 F.3d 918, 930 (9th Cir. 2004). A timely pending
motion to compel further discovery should have alerted the trial court of the need
to first address Haney’s discovery motion before taking up the prison guards’
summary judgment motion. Garrett v. City of San Francisco, 818 F.2d 1515, 1518
(9th Cir. 1987).
Here, the court granted the prison guards’ summary judgment motion before
the prison guards complied with Haney’s discovery requests and before they
answered Haney’s interrogatories. The magistrate judge had earlier issued an order
compelling Nelson and Saldana to in good faith respond to Haney’s interrogatories
(as modified by the district court) and to come forth with the records Haney
requested. In response to Nelson’s and Saldana’s Motion for Reconsideration of
the order compelling further discovery, the magistrate judge stayed enforcement of
the discovery order until the parties could fully brief the prison guards’ Motion for
2
Reconsideration. Significantly, the magistrate judge never ruled on Nelson’s and
Saldana’s Motion for Reconsideration before they successfully moved for
summary judgment.
The record shows that Haney sought discovery diligently. The district court
abused its discretion in granting Appellees’ Motion for Summary Judgment before
allowing Haney to complete discovery.
The district court’s order granting summary judgment in favor of
correctional officers Nelson and Saldana is AFFIRMED with respect to its finding
that Haney’s request for injunctive relief is now moot, and VACATED in all other
respects. The matter is REMANDED with instructions to allow Haney to
complete discovery. The parties shall each bear their own costs on appeal.
3