Smith v. Schuyler

Background

Larry Smith, a California prisoner proceeding without an attorney, brought this civil-rights case under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The order addressed two filings: Smith’s motion for an extension of time and production of documents, and Defendant Bergen’s request for entry of a separate judgment.

Extension of Time

The court granted Smith’s request for more time to oppose the summary-judgment motion filed by Defendants Singh and Kalinjian. Smith said that moves to and from prison and a hospital left him unable to find the motion among his legal papers. The court ordered Singh and Kalinjian to serve Smith another copy of the motion and exhibits by November 7, 2024.

Smith’s opposition was due December 5, 2024, and the reply was due December 21, 2024. The court stated that this extension gave Smith approximately eight months to prepare his opposition because the motion had originally been served on April 4, 2024. It also stated that no further extensions or additional orders requiring documents to be served would be granted absent extraordinary circumstances.

Production of Documents

Smith asked the court to order California State Prison–Lancaster and the warden of Donovon Correctional Facility to provide medical records. The court denied this request because those entities and the warden were not parties to the lawsuit, so the court could not compel them to produce documents under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37.

The court reminded Smith that state prisoners may review nonconfidential materials in their medical and central files under the authorities identified in the order. Requests to review those files or obtain copies had to be made directly to prison officials rather than to the court.

Bergen’s Request for Entry of Judgment

The court had previously granted separate summary-judgment motions filed by Bergen and Doherty. Claims against Singh and Kalinjian, and their joint summary-judgment motion, remained pending.

Bergen asked for a separate judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 58. The court explained that under Rule 54(b), an order resolving fewer than all claims or parties does not end the action unless the court expressly determines that there is no just reason for delay. The court had made no such determination, and Bergen did not justify entering judgment at that time. Because the claims against Bergen were substantially related to the pending claims, the court denied her request and stated that a separate judgment would be entered under Rule 58(b) when all claims against all parties were resolved.

Disposition

Judge Corley ruled that Smith’s motion for an extension of time and production of documents was granted in part and denied in part. Bergen’s request for entry of a separate judgment was denied. The order resolved docket numbers 61 and 62.