Slip Opinion
E.D. Cal.2019Background
- Plaintiff Ronnie Cherokee Brown, a state prisoner proceeding pro se under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, filed this action in the Eastern District of California; matter referred under Local Rule 302.
- The court previously limited Brown to filing one dispositive motion at a time (Nov. 9, 2018 order) due to repetitious filings.
- Multiple motions are pending: defendants moved to strike an unauthorized opposition (surreply) filed by Brown; Brown filed two motions for summary judgment; defendants filed a motion for summary judgment on exhaustion grounds and a motion for a protective order to stay non-exhaustion discovery; Brown sought an extension to file an additional opposition.
- Defendants argue Brown failed to exhaust administrative remedies and thus seek summary judgment and a stay of discovery unrelated to exhaustion as unduly burdensome.
- The court concluded the unauthorized filings violated its prior order, determined the defendants’ summary judgment could be resolved without broader discovery, and addressed Brown’s extension request.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Motion to strike Brown’s unauthorized opposition/surreply | Brown filed an opposition to defendants’ answer and contends it should remain on record | Defendants argue the filing was unauthorized under the Federal Rules, Local Rules, and the court’s Nov. 9, 2018 order | Granted — court struck Brown’s opposition (ECF No. 64) as unauthorized |
| Multiple summary judgment filings (duplicative motions) | Brown filed two summary judgment motions asserting entitlement to judgment | Defendants point to the court’s one-dispositive-motion restriction and ask that duplicative filings be stricken | Granted — second summary judgment motion (ECF No. 77) stricken for violating the prior order |
| Defendants’ motion for protective order to stay non-exhaustion discovery | Brown implicitly seeks discovery on the merits while exhaustion is disputed | Defendants assert exhaustion motion is potentially case-dispositive and discovery on merits would be unduly burdensome and unnecessary | Granted — non-exhaustion discovery stayed pending resolution of defendants’ summary judgment on exhaustion |
| Brown’s motion for extension of time to file another opposition | Brown seeks 45–60 days to obtain assistance and records to file a second opposition | Defendants note they already replied and the motion briefed; court’s one-motion limitation weighs against further filings | Denied — second opposition not permitted; summary judgment fully briefed |
Key Cases Cited
- Little v. City of Seattle, 863 F.2d 681 (9th Cir. 1988) (district court has broad discretion to stay discovery pending a dispositive motion)
- Albino v. Baca, 747 F.3d 1162 (9th Cir. 2014) (en banc) (recognizes propriety of delaying merits discovery when failure to exhaust is asserted)