Panah v. State of California Dept. of Corrections and Rehabilitation ( 2020 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 HOOMAN PANAH, an individual, 9 Case No. 14-00166 BLF (PR) Plaintiff, 10 ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING 11 ORDER; GRANTING MOTION FOR v. EXTENSION OF TIME TO 12 RESPOND TO DISCOVERY; GRANTING MOTION FOR LEAVE 13 STATE OF CALIFORNIA DEPT. OF TO FILE SUCCESSIVE DISPOSITIVE MOTIONS; 14 CORRECTIONS AND GRANTING MOTION TO DEFER REHABILITATION, et al., BRIEFING ON PLAINTIFF’S 15 MOTION TO COMPEL AND Defendants. STAYING MOTION 16 17 (Docket Nos. 159, 164, 165, 167) 18 Plaintiff, an inmate on death row at San Quentin State Prison (“SQSP”) proceeding 19 pro se, filed a second amended complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging 20 unconstitutional acts by SQSP correctional officers. The Court found several of Plaintiff’s 21 claims cognizable, and scheduled briefing on the matter. (Docket No. 69.) On October 4, 22 2019, the Court granted Defendants Anderson, Odom, and Welton’s motion to compel 23 Plaintiff’s response to their first set of written discovery, (Docket No. 135). and directed 24 them to re-serve the request on Plaintiff. (Docket No. 148.) Plaintiff was advised to 25 respond to Defendants’ within thirty days of service. (Id. at 2.) The Court thereafter 26 granted Plaintiff’s request for copies, (Docket Nos. 151, 153), and Defendants filed notice 27 of compliance with the court order in re-serving on Plaintiff all their interrogatories and 28 1 this matter, i.e., his original complaint, first amended complaint, second amended 2 complaint, and supplement thereto. (Docket No. 154.) The Court addresses several 3 pending motions in this matter below. 4 5 DISCUSSION 6 I. Pending Motions 7 Plaintiff has filed another motion to compel discovery and for the Court to review 8 documents previously filed under Docket Nos. 122, 123, 124, 138, 139, and 140, in 9 considering his motion. (Docket No. 158.) Plaintiff also filed a motion for a temporary 10 restraining order, (Docket No. 159), to which Defendants filed a response, (Docket No. 11 160). Furthermore, Defendants have filed notice that counsel received service of 12 Plaintiff’s request, dated December 11, 2019, for an extension of time to comply with the 13 Court’s discovery order; Plaintiff requests until February 17, 2020, to complete his 14 response to Defendants’ discovery. (Docket No. 161.) At the same time, Defendants filed 15 a motion for sanctions against Plaintiff. (Docket No. 162.) More recently, Plaintiff has 16 filed a motion for extension of time to respond to discovery, and additional time to respond 17 to Defendants’ motion for sanctions. (Docket No. 167, 166.) Defendants also filed a 18 motion to dismiss several of Plaintiff’s claims, along with a motion for leave to file 19 successive dispositive motions. (Docket Nos. 163, 164.) Lastly, Defendants move to defer 20 briefing on Plaintiff’s motion to compel pending the Court’s ruling on their motion for 21 sanctions and motion to dismiss. (Docket No. 165.) 22 A. Motion for Temporary Restraining Order 23 Plaintiff moves for a temporary restraining order against the Warden of SQSP and 24 its employees “to cease opening Panah’s incoming and outgoing confidential legal mail 25 outside of [his] presence” and to stop delays in his confidential mail and prevent thefts 26 thereof. (Docket No. 159.) 27 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65 sets forth the procedure for issuance of a 1 preliminary injunction or temporary restraining order (“TRO”). “A preliminary injunction 2 is ‘an extraordinary and drastic remedy, one that should not be granted unless the movant, 3 by a clear showing, carries the burden of persuasion.’” Lopez v. Brewer, et al., 680 F.3d 4 1068, 1072 (9th Cir. 2012) (citation omitted) (emphasis in original). The standard for 5 issuing a TRO is similar to that required for a preliminary injunction. See Los Angeles 6 Unified Sch. Dist. v. United States Dist. Court, 650 F.2d 1004, 1008 (9th Cir. 1981) 7 (Ferguson, J., dissenting). “A plaintiff seeking a preliminary injunction must establish that 8 he is likely to succeed on the merits, that he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the 9 absence of preliminary relief, that the balance of equities tips in his favor, and that an 10 injunction is in the public interest.” Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 11 555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008). Here, Plaintiff has failed to establish any of the above factors for 12 issuance of a TRO. In particular, Plaintiff has not established likelihood of success on the 13 merits in the face of Defendants having filed a motion to dismiss several of Plaintiff’s 14 claims as untimely which appears to be meritorious. (Docket No. 163.) Accordingly, the 15 motion for a TRO is DENIED. 16 B. Motion for Leave to File Successive Dispositive Motions 17 Defendants filed a motion to dismiss several of Plaintiff’s claims under Federal 18 Rule 12(b)(6), (Docket No. 163), along with a concurrent motion for leave to file 19 successive dispositive motions to address the remaining claims, (Docket No. 164). 20 Defendants point to Plaintiff’s lack of compliance with their discovery requests as a 21 hindrance to their ability to file a single dispositive motion addressing all the claims. 22 (Docket No. 164 at 3.) Defendants have shown good cause for their desire to move 23 forward with procedural defenses on some of the claims, and to be permitted to move for 24 summary judgment on the remainder of Plaintiff’s claim. Accordingly, their motion for 25 leave to file successive dispositive motions is GRANTED. 26 Briefing on Defendants’ motion to dismiss shall proceed as set forth below. See 27 infra at 5. 1 C. Motion for Sanctions and Motion for Extension of Time 2 Defendants filed a motion for sanctions against Plaintiff by dismissal of all his 3 claims against them based on Plaintiff’s refusal to respond to basic contention discovery 4 and the Court’s multiple orders compelling the same. (Docket No. 162.) More recently, 5 Plaintiff has filed a motion for extension of time to respond to discovery, and additional 6 time to respond to Defendants’ motion for sanctions. (Docket No. 167, 166.) 7 Specifically, Plaintiff requests until March 31, 2020, to comply with discovery. 8 (Docket No. 167.) Good cause appearing, the motion is GRANTED. This is the final 9 extension of time to comply with Defendants’ discovery requests that will be granted to 10 Plaintiff. No further requests shall be considered or granted. 11 In addition, Plaintiff may file an opposition to Defendants’ motion for sanctions no 12 later than fourteen (14) days from the date this order is filed. 13 Plaintiff is advised that should he fail to comply with Defendants’ discovery 14 requests by March 31, 2020, the Court will consider granting Defendants’ motion for 15 sanctions and dismiss any remaining claims after Defendants’ motion to dismiss has been 16 decided. 17 D. Motion to Defer Briefing on Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel 18 Defendants request the Court defer briefing on Plaintiff’s motion to compel until 19 after the Court decides their motion for terminating sanctions and motion to dismiss. 20 (Docket No. 165.) Defendants assert that decisions on these pending motions may 21 terminate the litigation altogether or substantially narrow the Defendants, the claims at 22 issue, and the scope of discovery. (Id. at 3-4.) Defendants also point to Plaintiff’s failure 23 to respond to their basis contention discovery and the Court’s multiple orders compelling 24 the same. (Id. at 4.) The Court finds Defendants have satisfied the requirements for a 25 motion to change time under Local Rule 6-3, and that deferring briefing on Plaintiff’s 26 motion to compel is warranted under these circumstances. N.D. Cal. Civ. Pr. 6-3(a)-(d). 27 Plaintiff has filed no opposition. Accordingly, Defendants’ motion to defer briefing is 1 || GRANTED. Briefing on Plaintiff's motion to compel is hereby STAYED until the Court 2 |! sets forth a new briefing schedule, if appropriate, at a later time. 3 4 CONCLUSION 5 For the foregoing reasons, the Court orders as follows: 6 1. Plaintiff's motion for a temporary restraining order is DENIED. (Docket 7 Il No. 159.) 8 2. Defendants’ motion for leave to file successive dispositive motions is 9 || GRANTED. (Docket No. 164.) 10 3. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss on February 5, 2020. (Docket No. 1 163.) Accordingly, Plaintiff's opposition to Defendants’ motion to dismiss is due no later 12 || than twenty-eight (28) days from that date, i.e., by March 4, 2020. (Docket No. 69 at 13 13.) Defendants shall file a reply brief no later than fourteen (14) days after Plaintiff's 14 || opposition is filed. 2 15 4. Plaintiff's request for an extension of time until March 31, 2020, to comply A 16 || with discovery is GRANTED. (Docket No. 167.) This is a final extension of time, and 17 |) no further requests shall be considered or granted. 18 Plaintiff may file an opposition to Defendants’ motion for sanctions no later than 19 || fourteen (14) days from the date this order is filed. 20 5. Defendants’ motion to defer briefing on Plaintiff's motion to compel is 21 || GRANTED. (Docket No. 165.) The Clerk shall STAY the motion to compel, (Docket 22 || No. 158), until the Court sets forth a new briefing schedule. 23 This order terminates Docket Nos. 159, 164, 165, and 167. 24 IT IS SO ORDERED. 25 || Dated: February 20, 2020 beh Lown home) BETH LABSON FREEMAN United States District Judge 27 Order Addressing Pending Motions PRO-SE\BLF\CR.14\00166Panah_mots 28