United States District Court, W.D. Washington, Seattle
ORDER ON PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF
MICHELLE L. PETERSON United States Magistrate Judge
a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 prisoner civil rights action. The
discovery deadline is currently June 28, 2019, and the
dispositive motions deadline is July 29, 2019. (Dkt. # 218.)
Defendant Hatchell's and Defendants Machyo and
Chavez's separate motions for summary judgment (dkt. ##
192, 193) have been re-noted to June 7, 2019 (dkt. # 218).
30, 2019, Plaintiff filed a motion for extension of all
deadlines until November 2019, asserting that because he has
been temporarily transferred from the custody of the
Department of Corrections (“DOC”) to the King
County Jail, he does not have access to his legal files or
research. (Dkt. # 220.) On June 3, 2019, however, Plaintiff
filed an opposition to the pending motions for summary
judgment. (Dkt. # 221.) On June 7, 2019, Defendant Hatchell
filed an opposition to Plaintiff's motion for extension
of time, arguing that his motion should be denied because his
response to the motions for summary judgment demonstrates
that he has sufficient ability to litigate while at the King
County Jail. (Dkt. # 224.) Defendant Hatchell also argues
that Plaintiff did not point to any specific item that he is
missing that prevented him from appropriately responding to
the motions for summary judgment. (Id.)
11, 2019, the Court re-noted Plaintiff's motion for
extension of time for June 21, 2019, because Defendant
Hatchell's opposition brief was untimely and Plaintiff
did not have an opportunity to file a reply. (Dkt. # 225.)
The Court directed Plaintiff to address the issues Defendant
Hatchell raised and also explain to the Court how frequently
he is able to access the law library at the King County Jail,
what legal documents he currently has access to, and what
documents he does not currently have access to that he
believes are necessary to litigating this action.
reply, Plaintiff explains that his evidence and
Defendants' discovery are currently stored at a facility
in Everett, Washington, or in long-term DOC inmate storage in
Shelton, Washington. (Dkt. # 226 at 1.) He asserts that he
will have no access to these documents until he is
transferred back to DOC custody and to his long-term housing
assignment. (Id. at 2.) Plaintiff states that he
attempted to have a discovery conference with Defendants'
counsel but has not been able to arrange the call.
(Id.) He also claims that he never received
Defendant Hatchell's opposition to his motion for
extension of time. (Id. at 3.) With respect to his
response to the pending motions for summary judgment,
Plaintiff points out that he cut and pasted portions of a
submission he had already filed with the Court.
(Id.) He claims that he has evidence in storage that
establishes Defendant Hatchell admitted his wrongs and was
sanctioned by his employer. (Id.) Plaintiff also has
submitted evidence that he has four hours of access to the
legal workstation each week. (Id. at 4.)
considered the parties' submissions, the Court will grant
in part Plaintiff's motion for extension of all
deadlines. (Dkt. # 220.) Given that Plaintiff's discovery
and evidence is in DOC custody and Plaintiff is in King
County custody, the Court extends the discovery and
dispositive motions deadlines, as set forth below, to allow
time for Plaintiff's return to DOC custody.
Court, however, declines to significantly delay ruling on the
pending motions for summary judgment. Defendant Hatchell
argues that he is entitled to summary judgment because
Plaintiff's claim is barred by the Prison Litigation
Reform Act's (“PLRA”) physical injury
requirement and because he is entitled to qualified immunity.
(See Dkt. # 192.) It appears to the Court that
Plaintiff would be able to adequately respond to these
arguments by conducting legal research at the jail's
legal workstation, which he can access for four hours a week,
and drafting a declaration based on his personal knowledge.
Although Plaintiff states that he has been unable to obtain
copies of documents in Defendant Hatchell's personnel
file (dkt. # 221 at 19), it does not appear that these
documents would be material to the legal issues Defendant
Hatchell raises in his summary judgment motion.
Machyo and Chavez also argue that they are entitled to
summary judgment because Plaintiff did not suffer a physical
injury as required by the PLRA and because they are entitled
to qualified immunity; they further argue Plaintiff failed to
establish that they acted with deliberate indifference and
that Defendant Machyo retaliated against him. (Dkt. # 193.)
Again, it appears Plaintiff could respond to this motion with
legal research and a declaration based on personal knowledge.
Plaintiff already filed a response brief (dkt. # 221), he did
so after he filed his motion for extension of time and at the
last minute by cutting and pasting portions of a brief he had
already drafted (dkt. # 226 at 3). The Court, therefore, will
give him an opportunity to file a supplemental response by
the deadline set forth below. Defendants, likewise, will be
permitted to file supplemental replies. If Plaintiff believes
he cannot present facts essential to justifying his
opposition, he may file a motion pursuant to Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 56(d). As noted above, however, it appears
unlikely that such a motion will be necessary. Based on the
foregoing, the Court ORDERS:
Plaintiff's motion for extension of all deadlines (dkt. #
220) is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.
parties shall complete discovery by November 18,
2019, and file dispositive motions by
December 18, 2019.
Clerk is directed to RE-NOTE the pending motions for summary
judgment (dkt. ## 192, 193) for July 26,
2019. Plaintiff shall file any response briefs by
July 22, 2019, and Defendants shall file any reply briefs by
July 26, 2019.
Clerk is directed to send copies of this order to the parties
and to ...