(PC) Williams v. Adams ( 2022 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 KENTRELL WILLIAMS, 1:19-cv-01058-ADA-GSA-PC 12 Plaintiff, ORDER VACATING IN-COURT HEARING SCHEDULED FOR 13 vs. DECEMBER 16, 2022 14 ADAMS, et al., VACATED: 15 Defendants. Hearing on Motion for Summary Judgment December 16, 2022 at 9:30 a.m. 16 Before Magistrate Judge Gary S. Austin 17 ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST FOR EXTENSION OF TIME 18 (ECF No. 47.) 19 NINETY-DAY DEADLINE FOR PLAINTIFF TO FILE OPPOSITION TO 20 DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT 21 TWENTY-DAY DEADLINE FOR 22 DEFENDANTS TO FILE A REPLY TO PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION 23 ORDER ALLOWING LIMITED PURPOSE 24 DISCOVERY 25 26 I. BACKGROUND 27 Kentrell Williams (“Plaintiff”) is proceeding with counsel in this civil rights action 28 pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This case now proceeds with Plaintiff’s Second Amended 1 Complaint filed on November 3, 2021, against defendants Correctional Officer (C/O) Kendrick,1 2 C/O Sherwood, and C/O Busby (collectively, “Defendants”)2 (ECF No. 16.) Plaintiff’s Second 3 Amended Complaint claims that Defendants violated Plaintiff’s Fourth, Fifth, Eighth, and 4 Fourteenth Amendment rights. (Id.) 5 On June 30, 2022, the Court issued a Discovery and Scheduling Order establishing 6 pretrial deadlines for the parties, including a discovery deadline of December 30, 2022 and a 7 dispositive motion filing deadline of March 2, 2023. (ECF No. 36.) This case is currently in the 8 discovery phase. 9 On October 31, 2022, Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment on the ground 10 that Plaintiff failed to exhaust his administrative remedies before filing suit. (ECF No. 46.) The 11 motion was scheduled by Defendants to be heard on December 16, 2022 at 9:30 a.m. before 12 Magistrate Judge Gary S. Austin. 13 On November 9, 2022, Plaintiff filed a request for a 90-day extension of time to file a 14 response to Defendants’ motion for summary judgment to allow Plaintiff time to conduct limited 15 discovery re exhaustion of administrative remedies. (ECF No. 47.) Plaintiff also requests that 16 the hearing on the motion, currently set for December 16, 2022, be continued in accordance with 17 the requested extension of time. (Id.) On November 23, 2022, Defendants filed a statement of 18 non-opposition to Plaintiff’s request for extension of time. (ECF No. 48.) The undersigned 19 construes Plaintiff’s request as having been brought pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 20 56(d). 21 II. HEARING SCHEDULED FOR DECEMBER 16, 2022 IS VACATED 22 The in-court hearing scheduled for December 16, 2022 at 9:30 a.m. before Magistrate 23 Judge Gary S. Austin to hear Defendants’ motion for summary judgment is vacated from the 24 Court’s calendar. The parties are advised that Judge Austin does not hold in-court hearings, 25 Defendants’ motion for summary judgment shall be decided on the pleadings submitted by the 26 27 1 Sued as Kendricks. 28 2 Defendant CDCR was dismissed from this case on October 5, 2022. (ECF No. 42.) 1 parties. 2 III. RULE 56(d) OF THE FEDERAL RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 3 Rule 56(d) provides that the court may defer or deny ruling on a summary judgment 4 motion where the non-moving party shows by affidavit or declaration that, “for specified reasons, 5 it cannot present facts essential to justify its opposition.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(d). In seeking relief 6 under Rule 56(d), the moving party bears the burden of specifically identifying relevant 7 information, where there is some basis for believing that the information actually exists, and 8 demonstrating that the evidence sought actually exists and that it would prevent summary 9 judgment. Uhuru v. Singh, No. 2:20-CV-01664-TLN-KJN-P, 2021 WL 5867463, at *5–6 (E.D. 10 Cal. Dec. 10, 2021), report and recommendation adopted, No. 2:20-CV-01664-TLN-KJN, 2022 11 WL 229873 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 26, 2022) (citing Blough v. Holland Realty, Inc., 574 F.3d 1084, 12 1091 n.5 (9th Cir. 2009) (quotation marks and citation omitted)). 13 Plaintiff’s counsel declares that the materials in his possession reflecting Plaintiff’s timely 14 efforts to exhaust his administrative remedies are incomplete, and the “declarations submitted 15 with Defendants’ motion confirm that CDCR is in possession of documents that I believe will 16 demonstrate that Mr. Williams satisfied the legal requirements with respect to administrative 17 remedies.” (Declaration of Kellen Davis, ECF No. 47 at 3 ¶¶ 3, 4.) This declaration provides 18 the information required by Rule 56(d). Defendants request an extension of time in which to file 19 a reply to any potential opposition Plaintiff files regarding Defendants’ motion for summary 20 judgment. 21 Based on the foregoing, the Court finds good cause to grant the parties’ requests for 22 extension of time. 23 IV. CONCLUSION 24 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 25 1. The hearing on Defendants’ motion for summary judgment, scheduled for 26 December 16, 2022 at 9:30 a.m., is vacated from the Court’s calendar, and the 27 motion for summary judgment shall be decided on the pleadings submitted by the 28 parties; 1 2. Plaintiff’s request for an extension of time, filed on November 9, 2022, is 2 GRANTED; 3 3. Plaintiff is granted 90 days from the date of service of this order in which to file 4 an opposition to Defendants’ motion for summary judgment; 5 4. Defendants are granted an extension of time to file a reply to Plaintiff’s 6 opposition, until 20 days from the date of filing of the opposition; 7 5. After the discovery deadline of December 30, 2022 has passed, and pending the 8 parties’ deadlines to file their opposition and reply, the parties may conduct 9 limited discovery on the issue of exhaustion of administrative remedies; and, 10 6. If needed, the Court shall issue a new scheduling order after resolution of the 11 motion for summary judgment. 12 IT IS SO ORDERED. 13 14 Dated: December 2, 2022 /s/ Gary S. Austin UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28