Glass v. Scribner, et al

Filing 147

ORDER Re Defendants' MOTION for SUMMARY JUDGMENT 94 , signed by Magistrate Judge Dennis L. Beck on 2/3/09: Defendants are to serve and file a supplement to their motion, to include an authenticated copy of the videotape of the April 17, 2002 in cident. In the alternative, Defendants may serve and file notification that they elect to proceed with their motion without the videotape. Plaintiff shall be provided with an opportunity to file a supplemental opposition in the event that defendants choose to file the videotape. (Supplement due by 2/24/2009)(Hellings, J)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 v. 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Plaintiff Donald Glass ("Plaintiff") is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in a civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Pending before the Court is Defendants' motion for summary judgment, filed December 27, 2006. (Doc. 94). One allegation upon which this action proceeds is a claim of excessive force during an incident occurring April 17, 2002. Defendants have referred to a videotape of the purported April 17, 2002 incident in their Memorandum of Points and Authorities. (See for example, Doc. 94, Motion for Summary Judgment, p.13:1-11). It does not appear that a copy of the videotape has been filed with the Court; upon cursory review the declarations filed by defendants in support of their motion do not attach nor authenticate a copy of the videotape as an exhibit. Defendants. ____________________________________/ A. K. SCRIBNER, et al., DONALD GLASS, Plaintiff, 1:04-CV-05953-AWI-DLB-P ORDER RE DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 3b142a 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Accordingly, within twenty (20) days of service of this order, Defendants are to serve and file a supplement to their motion, to include an authenticated copy of the videotape of the April 17, 2002 incident. In the alternative, Defendants may serve and file notification that they elect to proceed with their motion without the videotape. Plaintiff shall be provided with an opportunity to file a supplemental opposition in the event that defendants choose to file the videotape. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated:

February 3, 2009

/s/ Dennis L. Beck UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE