Opinion
19-cv-1576-bhl
01-07-2022
GREGORY ATWATER, Plaintiff, v. EFFREY ROLLINS, et al., Defendants.
DECISION AND ORDER
BRETT H. LUDWIG, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Plaintiff Gregory Atwater is representing himself in this 42 U.S.C. §1983 case. On December 22, 2021, Defendants filed a summary judgment motion. Dkt. No. 32. About a week ater, at Atwater's request, the Court extended Atwater's response deadline to February 21, 2022. Less than a week after that, on January 5, 2022, Atwater filed a motion to stay Defendants' motion nd to reopen discovery. Dkt. No. 40. In support of his request, Atwater notes that Defendants iled their motion two days before the dispositive motion deadline. He also explains that, because e is in segregation, he does not have access to his legal materials, and he has had only limited ime at the law library. Atwater also asserts that Defendants failed to respond to his fourth set of ocument requests, which he states he filed prior to the discovery deadline.
The Court will deny Atwater's motion. It is of no consequence that Defendants filed their ummary judgment motion before the dispositive motion deadline. Although the parties were not ermitted to file a dispositive motion after the deadline, nothing precluded the parties from filing dispositive motion before the deadline. The deadline was simply the last day that a dispositive motion could be filed. Further, as noted, the revised response deadline is still more than six weeks way. Atwater does not state when he expects to have his legal materials returned to him, but if e still does not have his materials as the deadline approaches, he may move for another extension f his response deadline. As to his concern that he has only limited access to the law library, the Court reminds Atwater that summary judgment rises or falls on whether there is a genuine dispute f material fact. The Court is familiar with the law and does not require Atwater to explain the egal basis of his claim so much as to indicate which facts asserted by Defendants are in dispute. Atwater knows the facts of his case, and unlimited access to the law library will not assist him in dentifying which facts are in dispute.
Finally, Atwater states that he served his final set of document requests before the iscovery deadline, but he does not clarify if he served it far enough in advance of the deadline to llow Defendants to respond by the deadline. Atwater also fails to comply with Civil L. R. 37, which requires a party to first raise any concerns about discovery with the opposing party before nvolving the Court. Finally, discovery closed more than a month ago, and Atwater does not xplain why he waited until now to raise this issue. The Court will not further delay this case by eopening discovery. Because Atwater has failed to present good cause for staying Defendants' ummary judgment motion, the Court will deny his motion.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Atwater's motion to stay summary judgment (Dkt. No. 40) is DENIED