Ramsey v. Zhang-MD

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 DANIEL RAMSEY, Case No.: 20cv1076-AJB(RBB) CDCR # K-99536, 12 ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S Plaintiff, MOTION TO CORRECT 13 HARMLESS ERROR [ECF NO. 47]; v. 14 RONALD ZHANG-MD, et al., REPORT AND 15 RECOMMENDATION RE DENYING Defendants. 16 PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT 17 [ECF NO. 37] AND GRANTING 18 DEFENDANT’S REQUEST FOR RULE 56(d) RELIEF 19 20 21 On March 24, 2021, Plaintiff Daniel Ramsey filed a Motion for Summary 22 Judgment [ECF No. 37].1 On April 26, 2021, Defendant R. Zhang filed an Opposition to 23 Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment, in which he requests sixty days to conduct 24 discovery pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(d) in order to oppose Plaintiff’s 25 26 1 Plaintiff filed a “Motion to Correct Harmless Error” on May 19, 2021 [ECF No. 47], in which he seeks to correct two dates set forth in the exhibits to his Motion for Summary Judgment. Plaintiff’s motion is 27 GRANTED. 1 motion [ECF No. 42]. Plaintiff filed an Opposition to Defendant’s Request for Extension 2 of Time on May 5, 2021 [ECF No. 43]. For the reasons set forth below, this Court 3 recommends that Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment be DENIED WITHOUT 4 PREJUDICE as premature and Defendant’s request for relief under Rule 56(d) be 5 GRANTED. 6 I. BACKGROUND 7 Ramsey, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, initiated this civil rights action on June 8 11, 2020, by filing a Complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 [ECF No. 1]. He alleges 9 that Defendant R. Zhang, a medical doctor, violated the Eighth Amendment by refusing 10 to order an MRI and schedule him for neck and shoulder surgery, which had been 11 recommended in 2012 by a physician at his prior prison facility. (Third Am. Compl. 2-3, 12 ECF No. 35.) Plaintiff states that he has endured “excruciating pain” for seven years 13 while awaiting surgery. (Id. at 3.) 14 A scheduling order governing discovery in this case was issued on February 24, 15 2021 [ECF No. 29]. Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment was filed only four weeks 16 later, on March 24, 2021 [ECF No. 37]. The fact discovery cutoff is not until September 17 30, 2021, and the expert discovery deadline is January 14, 2022. (Order 1-3, ECF No. 18 29.) Therefore, much time remains in the discovery period. 19 II. DISCUSSION 20 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(d) “provides a device for litigants to avoid 21 summary judgment when they have not had sufficient time to develop affirmative 22 evidence.” United States v. Kitsap Physicians Serv., 314 F.3d 995, 1000 (9th Cir. 2002).2 23 Rule 56(d) permits a court to grant certain relief to the nonmoving party when it “shows 24 by affidavit or declaration that, for specified reasons, it cannot present facts essential to 25 26 2 2010 amendments to the Federal Rule of Civil Procedure renumbered and revised the former text of Rule 56(f) as Rule 56(d) but did not substantively change the rule in any manner relevant to the current 27 analysis. 1 justify its opposition [of a motion for summary judgment].” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(d). The 2 court may “(1) defer considering the [summary judgment] motion or deny it; (2) allow 3 time to obtain affidavits or declarations or to take discovery; or (3) issue any other 4 appropriate order.” Id., R. 56(d)(1)-(3). Rule 56(d) is designed to deal with “premature” 5 summary judgment motions, where the nonmoving party has not had a fair opportunity to 6 conduct discovery prior to filing its opposition. See Celotex Corp v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 7 317, 326, 106 S. Ct. 2548, 2554, 91 L. Ed. 2d 265 (1986). Where “a summary judgment 8 motion is filed so early in the litigation, before a party has had any realistic opportunity to 9 pursue discovery relating to its theory of the case, district courts should generally grant 10 any Rule 56[(d)] motion fairly freely.” Burlington N. Santa Fe R.R. Co. v. Assiniboine 11 & Sioux Tribes of Fort Peck Reservation, 323 F.3d 767, 773 (9th Cir. 2003). 12 The Court finds that Defendant has satisfied the requirements of Rule 56(d). 13 Zhang has provided a declaration from his counsel identifying the discovery he wishes to 14 engage in, including Plaintiff’s deposition, which Defendant claims may show that he 15 was not Ramsey’s treating physician during the relevant time frames and that it was not 16 Defendant’s decision to forego surgery in 2013, and expert discovery, which may 17 demonstrate that Defendant treated Ramsey in accordance with California Department of 18 Corrections and Rehabilitation pain medication management guidelines. (Def.’s Opp’n 19 Attach. #1 Crenshaw Decl. 1-2, ECF No. 42.) Zhang’s counsel believes this information 20 will raise a genuine issue of material fact. (Id. at 2.) The Court concludes that Defendant 21 has demonstrated that he has not had the opportunity to conduct sufficient discovery to 22 oppose Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment. 23 This case is in the early stages of discovery and the deadline for dispositive 24 motions is not until February 22, 2022. The parties therefore have ample time to file 25 motions for summary judgment. Once discovery is undertaken and the parties have a 26 better understanding of the facts, the grounds upon which Plaintiff is seeking summary 27 judgment or the scope of relief sought may change. In addition, the Court should be able 1 decide any summary judgment motion on a more complete record. The Court 2 accordingly recommends that Defendant’s request for Rule 56(d) relief be GRANTED 3 Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment be DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. 4 If. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION 5 Based on the foregoing, the Court recommends that Defendant’s request for relief 6 |}under Rule 56(d) [ECF No. 42] be GRANTED and Plaintiff's Motion for Summary 7 || Judgment [ECF No. 37] be DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. 8 This Report and Recommendation will be submitted to the Honorable Anthony J. 9 || Battaglia, United States District Court Judge assigned to this case, pursuant to the 10 || provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Any party may file written objections with the 11 || Court and serve a copy on all parties on or before June 4, 2021. The document should be 12 || captioned “Objections to Report and Recommendation.” Any reply to the objections 13 be served and filed on or before June 14, 2021. The parties are advised that failure 14 || to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the district 15 ||court’s order. Martinez v. YIst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 16 17 1g || Dated: May 20, 2021 | 2 f 19 Hon. Ruben B. Brooks 20 United States Magistrate Judge 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 ; 20cv1076-AJB(RBB)