Cramer v. Target Corporation et al
Filing
166
ORDER DENYING 144 request for schedule modification signed by Magistrate Judge Sheila K. Oberto on 6/22/2011. (Timken, A)
<![CDATA[
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
MATTHEW B. CRAMER,
12
13
CASE NO. 1:08-cv-01693-OWW-SKO
Plaintiff,
ORDERING DENYING REQUEST
FOR SCHEDULE MODIFICATION
v.
14
TARGET CORPORATION, et al.,
(Docket No. 144)
15
16
Defendants.
/
17
18
I. INTRODUCTION
19
Plaintiff Matthew Cramer ("Plaintiff") is proceeding in forma pauperis and pro se with an
20
action for damages and other relief concerning alleged civil rights violations pursuant to 42 U.S.C.
21
ยง 1983. Plaintiff's claim arises out of a theft incident at a Target store on March 3, 2008, to which
22
Plaintiff apparently pled "no contest." (See Doc. 67, 2:37.) In his complaint, Plaintiff asserts that
23
his civil rights were violated under Section 1983 due to the conduct of Eric Heller and Clebo
24
Wheatly, Target employees who allegedly questioned him regarding the theft, and the responding
25
officer, Greg Barrios, who arrested him (collectively "Defendants"). Currently pending before the
26
Court is Plaintiff's motion to modify the scheduling order to extend all the deadlines in the case.
27
(Doc. 144.)
28
1
II. DISCUSSION
2
On December 9, 2010, Plaintiff filed a motion to stay the case for 200 days pending his
3
release date from prison. (Doc. 135.) This motion was denied on January 12, 2011. (Doc. 139.)
4
On February 7, 2011, Plaintiff filed a request to modify the schedule to extend all the dates in his
5
case until after his release from North Kern State Prison, which was set for May 10, 2011, because
6
he does not have the materials to adequately litigate his case. (Doc. 144 ("Plaintiff has virtually no
7
resources to adequately handle any/all legal access while at [North Kern State Prison]").)1
8
Prisoners have a fundamental right of access to the courts. Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343,
9
346, 116 S.Ct. 2174 (1996); Phillips v. Hust , 588 F.3d 652, 655 (9th Cir. 2009). However, the right
10
is limited in nature and does not entitle prisoners to the best possible access or even ideal access,
11
Phillips, 588 F.3d at 656 (quotation marks and citation omitted), and prison officials are not required
12
to enable prisoners to discover grievances or litigate effectively once in court, Lewis, 518 U.S. at
13
354.
14
Plaintiff's motion to modify the schedule is a reincarnation of his motion to stay, which has
15
already been denied. Discovery has been open in this case since August 2010. (See Doc. 118.)
16
Other than asserting it is difficult for him to litigate his case from prison because of restricted access
17
to the law library, Plaintiff has not explained how he has been diligent in attempting to conduct
18
discovery in this case. Plaintiff asserts that Defendants have obstructed his access to Target
19
surveillance video of the events at issue here, and he is entitled to discovery regarding this video.
20
The issue of this surveillance video was considered by the Court long ago. (Doc. 99.) Further, to
21
the extent that Plaintiff seeks to serve interrogatories or take depositions, particularly to discover
22
information relevant to accomplish service of process on Target-employee Michael Yant, he has not
23
established why Plaintiff was unable to propound discovery in the last 10 months.2
24
1
25
26
27
28
On May 17, 2011, Plaintiff filed a change of address notice, and it appears that he has been released from
custody. (Doc. 162.)
2
The Court granted Plaintiff's motion to serve a subpoena duces tecum on Target Corporation requesting the
address of former Target employee Michael Yant contained in Target Corporation's records. Target Corporation
complied with the subpoena duces tecum and provided the most current address in its files for Michael Yant. A summons
was issued (Doc. 117, sealed) and the U.S. Marshal was ordered to serve Plaintiff's complaint on Michael Yant at the
address identified by Target Corporation. Although service was attempted, Michael Yant was not found at the address
2
1
The record establishes that Plaintiff has had the materials necessary to file and serve a variety
2
of motions, notices, and other briefs. It is entirely unclear why, given this record, Plaintiff has been
3
unable to propound any discovery such as interrogatories and requests for production of documents.
4
Since August 2010, Plaintiff has filed replies to Defendants' opposition regarding Plaintiff's motion
5
to name Target Corporation as a party (Docs. 123, 124); a motion for reconsideration of the Court's
6
order denying his motion to name Target Corporation as a party (Doc. 125); a notice of change of
7
address and a request for an extension of time to respond to Defendant Barrios' motion for summary
8
judgment (Doc. 131); a motion to stay (Doc. 135); reply briefs responding to Defendants' opposition
9
to Plaintiff's motion to stay (Doc. 138); an opposition to Defendant Barrios' motion for summary
10
judgment (Doc. 140); a notice of change of address (Doc. 142); a motion for an extension of time
11
(Doc. 144); objections to the Court's order allowing Plaintiff additional time to renew his 56(f)
12
motion (Doc. 149); a request for judicial notice of Plaintiff's continued medical care (Doc. 152); a
13
supplemental filing in support of Plaintiff's request for judicial notice (Doc. 157); additional notices
14
of a change of address (Docs. 158, 161, 162); and a motion for a 60-day extension of time to file a
15
renewed motion 56(f) motion (Doc. 162). As evidenced by numerous filings with the Court since
16
August 2010 when discovery opened, Plaintiff has had access to the types of materials necessary to
17
file a variety of documents with the Court, the same materials that would be needed to propound
18
discovery. Yet, there is no indication that Plaintiff has ever initiated any discovery. Plaintiff has not
19
established good cause for a schedule modification. Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b).
20
Plaintiff further asserts that he cannot adequately oppose Defendants' motions for summary
21
judgment or otherwise litigate the case because his law-library access is restricted; he thus contends
22
he needs a schedule modification. Plaintiff has opposed Defendants' motions for summary judgment.
23
(Docs. 100, 140.) In his oppositions, Plaintiff asserted that he needed more time to conduct
24
discovery and requested that the Court continue consideration of Defendants' summary judgment
25
motions until such discovery could be completed. (See Docs. 100, 140.)
26
///
27
28
indicated by Target Corporation's records. (Doc. 128, sealed.)
3
1
In considering Plaintiff's oppositions in February 2011, the Court construed Plaintiff's
2
statements in his oppositions as Rule 56(f) motions,3 and denied them without prejudice. (Doc. 147.)
3
In its order, the Court explained the standards under Rule 56(f) and what Plaintiff needed to show
4
to be entitled to the continuances he sought. (Doc. 147.) The Court provided Plaintiff with
5
additional time to renew his Rule 56(f) motion, extending Plaintiff an additional opportunity to
6
establish the need for a continuance of Defendants' motions. (Doc. 147.) On March 2, 2011,
7
Plaintiff filed objections to the Court's order. (Doc. 149.) This issue has already been addressed by
8
the Court once and will be addressed by the Court again in a separate order addressing Plaintiff's
9
May 17, 2011, motion for a 60-day extension of time to file renewed Rule 56(f) motions. (See Doc.
10
162.) Any extension of the discovery deadlines as a result of a continuance under Rule 56(f) will
11
necessarily be considered in the Court's separate order regarding Plaintiff's May 17, 2011, motion.
12
III.
13
14
CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated above, Plaintiff's motion to modify the scheduling order to extend all
the deadlines is DENIED.
15
16
IT IS SO ORDERED.
17
Dated:
ie14hj
June 22, 2011
/s/ Sheila K. Oberto
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56 has been amended. The former Rule 56(f) is now designated as Rule 56(d).
4
]]>
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?
