Opinion
23-cv-00510 BLF (PR)
05-21-2024
SAMUEL RUSS OXLEY, Plaintiff, v. DEPUTY SAMUEL JONES, et al., Defendants.
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR STAY; GRANTING EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE OPPOSITION; DIRECTING DEFENDANTS TO FILE NOTICE OF INTENT; DENYING ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION AS MOOT
(Docket Nos. 59, 60)
BETH LABSON FREEMAN United States District Judge
Plaintiff, who appears to be a pretrial detainee currently confined at the West County Detention Facility, filed a civil rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against officers of the Contra Costa County Sheriff's Department. Dkt. No. 1. The Court found the complaint stated cognizable claims and ordered service on Defendants who were directed to file a dispositive motion. Dkt. No. 27. On April 1, 2024, Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment which included video evidence. Dkt. No. 55. Defendants served on Plaintiff a copy of the motion, which included a thumb drive containing the video evidence, but the prison refused service because thumb drives are considered contraband. Dkt. No. 59 at 1-2. Upon receipt of that notification, Defendants re-served their motion papers on Plaintiff without the video evidence on April 9, 2024. Dkt. No. 601 at 2.
Plaintiff filed a motion “requesting Defendants motion for summary judgment be denied, regarding undue delays in Plaintiff opposing response, or stay motion for necessary information to be obtain[ed].” Dkt. No. 59. Plaintiff states that he does not know what was on the thumb drive that was rejected by the prison and is therefore unable to examine the adequacy of the information contained therein. Id. at 2. Plaintiff requests a stay to “have opportunity to pursue requested discovery that have not been answered.” Id. at 3. However, Plaintiff provides no description of the pending discovery for this Court to determine whether a stay is appropriate. Accordingly, the motion for a stay is DENIED. In the interest of justice, the Court will grant Plaintiff an extension of time to complete discovery and file opposition to Defendants' motion as set forth below.
With regard to Defendants' video evidence, it is unclear whether Plaintiff will ever be provided an opportunity to view this evidence and respond to it in his opposition. Defendants must either arrange an opportunity for Plaintiff to be able to review this video evidence or file notice that they wish to withdraw this video evidence on the basis that it has not been provided to Plaintiff. If Defendants wish to keep the video evidence as part of their summary judgment motion, they must make arrangements with the prison so that Plaintiff is able to prepare an opposition after viewing the video evidence in the time provided below. Defendants shall file notice of their intent no later than fourteen (14) days from the date this order is filed and, unless they intend to withdraw the evidence, include therein an explanation regarding the arrangements they have made with the prison with regard to the video evidence.
Plaintiff's motion to deny Defendants' summary judgment motion or for a stay is DENIED. Dkt. No. 59. In the interest of justice, Plaintiff is granted an extension of time to file an opposition to Defendants summary judgment motion. Plaintiff's opposition shall be filed no later than June 24, 2024, which is an extension of eight weeks from the original deadline of April 29, 2024.
Defendants' reply shall be filed no later than fourteen (14) days from the date Plaintiff's opposition is filed.
Defendants' administrative motion is DENIED as moot by this order. Dkt. No. 60.
This order terminates Docket Nos. 59 and 60.
IT IS SO ORDERED.