Free Order on Motion to Stay - District Court of Arizona - Arizona

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

STEVENSON J. WILLIAMS, Plaintiff, vs.

JOSEPH M. ARPAIO, et al., Defendants.

) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

CIV 04-459 PHX JWS ORDER AND OPINION [Re: Motions at Docket Nos. 29 and 32]

I. MOTIONS PRESENTED At docket 29, defendants Joseph M. Arpaio and Captain Tate ("defendants") move for summary judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56. Plaintiff did not file a response in opposition to defendants' motion. At docket 32, pro se plaintiff Stevenson J. Williams ("plaintiff") moves the court to stay summary judgment until after defendants respond to plaintiff's discovery request or, in the alternative, to strike defendants' motion for summary judgment for failure to disclose. Defendants did not respond to plaintiff's motion.

Case 2:04-cv-00459-JWS-VAM

Document 33

Filed 11/21/2005

Page 1 of 9

II. BACKGROUND At all times relevant to this action, plaintiff Williams was an inmate at the Towers Jail in Maricopa County, defendant Arpaio was the Sheriff of Maricopa County, and defendant Tate was an employee of the Maricopa County Sheriff's Office. On March 4, 2004, plaintiff filed a complaint alleging that his due process rights under the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution were violated by overcrowded conditions during his incarceration at the Towers Jail. Plaintiff's complaint specifically alleges that defendants Arpaio and Tate added a third bunk to one-man cells knowing that the result would be overcrowded conditions that violated plaintiff's constitutional rights. Plaintiff alleges that the overcrowded conditions (1) affect classifications, (2) limit access to religious, recreation, and medical services, and (3) cause an increase in violence. Plaintiff further alleges that he has suffered physical deterioration, stress, mental anguish, excessive noise, and fear of imminent danger. On August 30, 2005, defendants filed a motion for summary judgment, requesting the court to dismiss plaintiff's complaint on the grounds that plaintiff 1) has no evidence to show that he suffered a physical injury while in custody as required under 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(e) and 2) is not entitled to punitive damages against defendants Arpaio and Tate in their official capacities.1 Pursuant to Klingele v. Eikenberry,2 the district court advised plaintiff, who is a prisoner pro se litigant, of the requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56, and gave plaintiff until October 12,

1

Doc. 29.

849 F.2d 409, 411-12 (9th Cir. 1988) ("District courts are obligated to advise prisoner pro per litigants of Rule 56 requirements.")

2

-2-

Case 2:04-cv-00459-JWS-VAM

Document 33

Filed 11/21/2005

Page 2 of 9

2005, to file a response in opposition to defendants' motion for summary judgment.3 Plaintiff did not file a response in opposition to defendants' motion. On September 19, 2005, plaintiff filed the underlying motion to stay defendants' motion for summary judgment or, in the alternative, to strike defendants' motion for failure to disclose.4 Defendants did not file a response in opposition to plaintiff's motion. III. DISCUSSION Plaintiff requests the court to either stay summary judgment until after defendants respond to his discovery request or, in the alternative, to strike defendants' motion for failure to disclose. Citing Klingele v. Eikenberry,5 plaintiff argues that a court should not grant summary judgment against a party whose discovery request has not been answered. Plaintiff further alleges that defendants did not respond to plaintiff's discovery request, which was served in May 2005, and that plaintiff's discovery request "sought medical records and other materials directly relevant to the cause of action alleged in his Complaint."6 Although not cited in plaintiff's motion, it appears that plaintiff is seeking relief pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(f). "Under Rule 56(f), the court may postpone ruling on a summary judgment motion where the non-moving party needs
3

Doc. 31. Doc. 32.

4

849 F.2d at 412-13 (concluding that district court abused its discretion by granting summary judgment against pro se prisoner litigant while his discovery motions were still pending).
6

5

Doc. 32 at 2.

-3-

Case 2:04-cv-00459-JWS-VAM

Document 33

Filed 11/21/2005

Page 3 of 9

`additional discovery to explore facts essential to justify the party's opposition.'"7 "Though the conduct of discovery is generally left to a district court's discretion, summary judgment is disfavored where relevant evidence remains to be discovered, particularly in cases involving confined pro se plaintiffs."8 In his motion to stay defendants' motion for summary judgment, plaintiff alleges that he has requested medical records and other documents relevant to his claims and that defendants have failed to respond to his discovery request. While it appears plaintiff is requesting relief properly afforded under Rule 56(f), plaintiff has not filed a motion which meets the requirements of Rule 56(f). In the interests of resolving this matter on the merits, rather than on procedural deficiencies, the court denies plaintiff's motion to stay or strike with the express reservation that plaintiff may file a properly supported Rule 56(f) motion. The court further advises plaintiff of the requirements of Rule 56(f). A Rule 56(f) motion must be filed before the summary judgment hearing. To support a request for postponement under Rule 56(f), plaintiff must provide the court and opposing counsel with an affidavit or declaration,9 signed under penalty of perjury, stating the facts that plaintiff would discover in the requested discovery that would prevent summary judgment, the reasons why the needed facts are unavailable, and how plaintiff expects the needed facts to

Jones v. Blanas, 393 F.3d 918, 930 (9th Cir. 2004) (quoting Crawford-El v. Britton, 523 U.S. 574, 599 n.20 (1998) (internal citation omitted)).
8

7

Id. (citing Klingele v. Eikenberry, 949 F.2d 409, 412 (9th Cir. 1988). A blank declaration form is attached to this order.

9

-4-

Case 2:04-cv-00459-JWS-VAM

Document 33

Filed 11/21/2005

Page 4 of 9

support his claims.10 Failure to comply with these requirements is a proper ground for denying the relief requested under Rule 56(f).11 IV. CONCLUSION For the reasons stated above, plaintiff's motion at docket 32 to stay or strike defendants' motion for summary judgment is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. It is FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff shall have until January 9, 2005, to file a properly supported motion pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(f) or a properly supported response in opposition to defendants' motion for summary judgment at docket 29. At docket 31, the court has provided plaintiff fair notice of how to oppose a motion for summary judgment. Plaintiff is advised that if he does not file a Rule 56(f) motion and a supporting declaration, or a properly supported response in opposition to defendants' motion for summary judgment by January 9, 2005, judgment may be granted in defendants' favor. If judgment is granted in defendants' favor, the case will be dismissed, and there will be no trial. Should plaintiff file a Rule 56(f) motion, the court expects that defendants will timely file a response in opposition. DATED at Anchorage, Alaska, this 18th day of November 2005.

/s/ JOHN W. SEDWICK UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Chance v. Pac-Tel Teletrac Inc., 242 F.3d 1151, 1161 (9th Cir. 2001); U.S. v. Kitsap Physicians Service, 314 F.3d 995, 1000 (9th Cir. 2002).
11

10

Kitsap Physicians Service, 314 F.3d at 1000.

-5-

Case 2:04-cv-00459-JWS-VAM

Document 33

Filed 11/21/2005

Page 5 of 9

Nam e

Address Telephone

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

, Case No. Plaintiff/Petitioner, vs. DECLARATION , Defendant(s)/Respondent(s). I, hereby declare, under penalty of perjury, that , proceeding without counsel,

PS 13

Case 2:04-cv-00459-JWS-VAM

Document 33

Filed 11/21/2005

Page 6 of 9

PS 13

2

DECLARATION

Case 2:04-cv-00459-JWS-VAM

Document 33

Filed 11/21/2005

Page 7 of 9

PS 13

3

DECLARATION

Case 2:04-cv-00459-JWS-VAM

Document 33

Filed 11/21/2005

Page 8 of 9

I,

, declare under penalty of

perjury, that I have reviewed the above declaration, and that the information contained in this declaration is true and correct.

DATED this

day of .

, 200

, at
(City)

,

(State)

Signature

I hereby certify that a copy of the above declaration was mailed by first class, U.S. Mail to
(Opposing party or counsel)

at
(Address)

and/or to the United States District Court for the District of Arizona, Sandra Day O'Connor Courthouse, 410 W est Washington St., SPC1, Suite 130, Phoenix, Arizona 85003-2118 on .
(Date of m ailing or handing to correctional officer)

Signature

PS 13

4

DECLARATION

Case 2:04-cv-00459-JWS-VAM

Document 33

Filed 11/21/2005

Page 9 of 9