Opinion
22-cv-05832 BLF (PR)
05-13-2024
TRACYE BENARD WASHINGTON, Plaintiff, v. J. SERRATO, et al., Defendants.
ORDER GRANTING EXTENSION OF TIME; DENYING MOTION FOR COURT ORDER; DIRECTING DEFENDANTS TO RESPOND TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL; TERMINATING MOTION FOR CLARIFICATION (DOCKET NOS. 34, 35, 37)
BETH LABSON FREEMAN UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Plaintiff, a California inmate, filed the instant pro se civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against prison staff at Salinas Valley State Prison (“SVSP”), where he was formerly housed. On May 3, 2023, the Court found the complaint stated cognizable claims of excessive force and conspiracy to commit an assault, and ordered the matter served on Defendants. Dkt. No. 9. On January 29, 2024, Defendants E. Guijarro, B. Akins, A. Serrato, and C. Diaz filed a motion for summary judgment on the merits as well on the grounds that Plaintiff failed to exhaust administrative remedies for claims against Defendant Guijarro, and they are entitled to qualified immunity. Dkt. No. 21. Plaintiff was granted an extension of time until May 24, 2024, to file opposition. Dkt. No. 30.
On April 29, 2024, Plaintiff filed an opposition addressing Defendants' exhaustion defense, Dkt. No. 33, along with a motion to compel Defendants to comply with discovery, asserting that he has attempted to meet and confer with no response from Defendants. Dkt. No. 31. Plaintiff filed another “opposition” addressing Defendants' other summary judgment arguments on May 6, 2024, which contains incomplete exhibits in support. Dkt. No. 33. Along with that paper, Plaintiff filed a request for extension of time to acquire additional documents in support of his opposition, Dkt. No. 34, and a request for a court order to the Warden, to allow him access to his records, Dkt. No. 35. Most recently, on May 9, 2024, Plaintiff submitted some medical records in support of his opposition. Dkt. No. 36.
On May 10, 2024, Defendants filed a motion requesting clarification of the briefing schedule, seeking one due date to file a single reply to Plaintiff's multiple opposition papers. Dkt. No. 36. However, in light of Plaintiff's claim that Defendants are not responding to his various discovery requests, the Court will require Defendants to file a response to Plaintiff's motion to compel before deeming his opposition submitted or setting a reply deadline. Defendants' response must include an explanation for their failure to comply with Plaintiff's request to meet and confer.
Defendants shall file a response to Plaintiff's motion to compel, Dkt. No. 31, no later than fourteen (14) days from the date this order is filed. Defendants are also ordered to respond to Plaintiff's request for discovery in his motion seeking a court order against the Warden. Dkt. No. 35. If Defendants have possession or access to the documents Plaintiff seeks in his motion, they must produce them to Plaintiff in the same time as their response is due.
Plaintiff currently has until May 24, 2024, to submit his opposition papers. In light of pending discovery issues, his request for extension of time is GRANTED. Dkt. No. 34. Plaintiff shall file his final supporting documents in support no later than June 7, 2024.
Defendants shall file their reply brief no later than fourteen (14) days after Plaintiff's final supporting documents are filed.
Plaintiff's motion for a court order is DENIED because the Warden is not a party to this action. Dkt. No. 35.
This order terminates Docket Nos. 34, 35, and 37.
IT IS SO ORDERED.