(PC) Correa v. Bravdrick ( 2022 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ANGELO CORREA, No. 1:19-cv-00369-ADA-BAK (GSA) (PC) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO STAY 13 v. (Doc. 86) 14 BRAUDRICK, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff Angelo Correa is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights 18 action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 19 I. INTRODUCTION 20 On August 3, 2022, Plaintiff filed a “Motion for Stay.” (Doc. 86.) Plaintiff contends a stay 21 is necessary to allow him to “complete discovery that the defendants have not yet complied with.” 22 (Id. at 2.) Plaintiff states Defendant Torres has “not yet complied” with his first set of 23 interrogatories, essentially arguing Torres’ responses to those interrogatories require that further 24 information be provided. (Id. at 2-4.) Plaintiff asks the Court to “deny summary judgment motion 25 … or at least stay it until” he has a “chance to obtain the necessary information.” (Id. at 3.) 26 Plaintiff seeks “more time and discovery” and asks the Court to “delay” summary judgment. (Id. 27 at 5.) In conclusion, Plaintiff asks this Court to “issue a stay or deny” the motion for summary 1 Defendants opposed the motion for stay in their August 17, 2022, filing. (Doc. 88.) 2 Defendants contend that, even liberally construing Plaintiff’s motion as one arising under Federal 3 Rule of Civil Procedure 56(d), the motion should be denied. (Id. at 4.) Defendants contend 4 Plaintiff’s motion was made after the summary judgment motion was deemed submitted, and 5 because Plaintiff raised no concerns prior to the filing of his motion, it is therefore untimely. (Id.) 6 Additionally, Defendants argue the discovery Plaintiff seeks would not preclude summary 7 judgment in Defendant Torres’ favor. (Id. at 5.) That is so, they argue, because Plaintiff seeks 8 “information regarding grievances filed against Defendant Torres by other inmates,” but that 9 information, even if obtained, "would not overcome Defendants’ evidence that Defendant Torres 10 was not deliberately indifferent to Plaintiff’s medical needs on March 17, 2017.” (Id.) 11 II. DISCUSSION 12 The district court “has broad discretion to stay proceedings as an incident to its power to 13 control its own docket.” Clinton v. Jones, 520 U.S. 681, 706 (1997) (citing Landis v. North 14 American Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254 (1936)). “Generally, stays should not be indefinite in nature.” 15 Dependable Highway Exp., Inc. v. Navigators Ins. Co., 498 F.3d 1059, 1066–67 (9th Cir. 2007). 16 If a stay is especially long or its term is indefinite, a greater showing is required to justify it. 17 Yong v. I.N.S., 208 F.3d 1116, 1119 (9th Cir. 2000). The party seeking the stay bears the burden 18 of establishing the need to stay the action. Clinton, 520 U.S. at 708. 19 Here, Plaintiff has not carried his burden of establishing the need for a stay. 20 First, the undersigned issued Findings and Recommendations concerning Defendants’ 21 motion for summary judgment on June 27, 2022. (Doc. 82.) In those findings, regarding the 22 deliberate indifference to serious medical needs claim against Defendant Torres, the Court found 23 that even viewing the facts in the light most favorable to Plaintiff, Defendants established an 24 absence of evidence to support a claim that Defendant Torres knowingly placed Plaintiff at risk of 25 serious injury. (Id. at 13-17.) The undersigned recommended summary judgment be granted in 26 favor of Defendant Torres. (Id. at 17, 20.) Significantly, Defendants filed their merits-based 27 summary judgment motion on July 22, 2021. (Doc. 70.) Plaintiff filed an opposition to the motion 1 Plaintiff’s opposition on November 30, 2021. (Doc. 80.) Thus, the motion was fully briefed and 2 pending before this Court for more than seven months before the Findings and Recommendations 3 issued in late June of this year. Plaintiff will not now be heard to complain about the need for 4 additional discovery. The Findings and Recommendations have been submitted to, and are now 5 pending before, the District Judge assigned to this action. 6 Second, Plaintiff has not established that the responses to previously served discovery 7 directed to Defendant Torres would make any difference to the outcome of Defendants’ summary 8 judgment motion. Plaintiff contends he is entitled to more complete responses to his interrogatory 9 numbers 7 and 12, concerning “any 602 complaints submitted against” Defendant Torres and 10 their content. (Id. at 3.) He contends “past conduct is relevant to punitive damages.” (Id. at 4.) 11 Plaintiff provides no information whatsoever concerning the timing associated with the 12 information he now belatedly seeks. In other words, Plaintiff failed to reference either the date he 13 propounded the interrogatories to Defendant Torres, or the date Defendant Torres responded. He 14 merely provided photocopies of four excerpted pages from Defendant Torres’ response to his 15 interrogatory numbers 7 and 12. (Doc. 86 at 7-10.) Importantly, “any 602 complaints against” 16 Defendant Torres submitted by other inmates at Wasco State Prison, even if obtained, would have 17 no effect on the Court’s determination of the claim as explained in the June 27, 2022, Findings 18 and Recommendations. The claim concerns Plaintiff specifically and whether Defendant Torres 19 was deliberately indifferent to Plaintiff’s serious medical needs, not whether any complaint by an 20 inmate has been lodged against Defendant Torres. 21 Third, a Discovery and Scheduling Order was issued in this case on July 10, 2020. (Doc. 22 35.) At that point the deadline for the completion of all discovery was December 10, 2020. (Id. at 23 1, 3.) On November 16, 2020, the deadline to complete discovery was extended, at Plaintiff’s 24 request, to February 8, 2021. (Doc. 45.) On January 19, 2021, the deadline to complete discovery 25 was extended again to April 2, 2021. (Doc. 53.) Following the evidentiary hearing of March 9, 26 2021 (see Doc. 57 [minute order text only entry]), during which Plaintiff made an oral motion for 27 additional discovery that was denied, Plaintiff did not seek to modify the deadline for the 1 the filing of Defendants’ merits-based summary judgment motion. 2 Assuming as Defendants do that Plaintiff is moving under Rule 56(d) of the Federal Rules 3 of Civil Procedure, the Court finds, here too, Plaintiff has failed to meet his burden. Pursuant to 4 Rule 56(d) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a party opposing a motion for summary 5 judgment may request an order deferring the time to respond in order to permit that party to 6 conduct additional discovery upon an adequate factual showing. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(d) 7 (requiring party making such request to show “by affidavit or declaration that, for specified 8 reasons, it cannot present facts essential to justify its opposition”). An affidavit in support of such 9 a request must identify “the specific facts that further discovery would reveal, and explain why 10 those facts would preclude summary judgment.” Tatum v. City and County of San Francisco, 441 11 F.3d 1090, 1100 (9th Cir. 2006). On such a showing, “the court may: (1) defer considering the 12 motion or deny it; (2) allow time to obtain affidavits or declarations or to take discovery; or (3) 13 issue any other appropriate order.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(d). First, Plaintiff makes his request too 14 late, as noted above. The merits-based summary judgment motion was submitted with the filing 15 of Defendants’ reply on November 30, 2021 and the expiration of the reply filing deadline. See 16 Local Rule 230(l) [“All such motions will be deemed submitted when the time to reply has 17 expired”]. Of significance, the undersigned has already issued Findings and Recommendation 18 concerning Defendants’ motion for summary judgment; those findings are now pending before 19 the assigned District Judge. Second, and as explained above, the discovery sought by Plaintiff 20 would not preclude summary judgment. 21 Finally, to the degree Plaintiff’s motion can be construed to be a request for a stay of the 22 entire action, rather than a stay solely related to the merits-based summary judgment motion, such 23 a stay is not warranted. The Supreme Court explained, the “power to stay proceedings is 24 incidental to the power inherent in every court to control the disposition of the causes on its 25 docket with economy of time and effort for itself, for counsel, and for litigants.” Landis v. North 26 American Co., 299 U.S. at 254-55. To evaluate whether to stay an action, the Court must weigh 27 competing interests that will be affected by the grant or refusal to grant a stay, including: (1) the 1 a party may suffer in being required to go forward; and (3) the orderly course of justice measured 2 in terms of simplifying or complicating of issues, proof, and questions of law which could be 3 expected to result from a stay. CMAX, Inc. v. Hall, 300 F.2d 265, 268 (9th Cir. 1962) (citing 4 Landis, 299 U.S. at 254-55)). The Supreme Court explained, “If there is even a fair possibility 5 that the stay ... will work damage to some one else,” the party seeking the stay “must make out a 6 clear case of hardship or inequity.” Landis, 299 U.S. at 255. In this case, the competing interests 7 weigh against granting a stay where Findings and Recommendations concerning Defendants’ 8 merits-based motion for summary judgment have already issued. Next, Plaintiff will not suffer 9 hardship or inequity in being required to go forward where the discovery he hoped to obtain will 10 have no bearing on the outcome of his claim against Defendant Torres. Finally, considering the 11 orderly course of justice, a stay of this action would unnecessarily complicate the issues 12 surrounding the question of whether Defendant Torres was deliberately indifferent to Plaintiff’s 13 serious medical needs. There is more than a “fair possibility” that a stay of the action would 14 “work damage” to Defendant Torres at this stage of the proceedings. 15 III. CONCLUSION AND ORDER 16 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion for stay (Doc. 86) is 17 DENIED. 18 IT IS SO ORDERED. 19 20 Dated: August 24, 2022 /s/ Gary S. Austin UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 21 22 23 24 25 26 27