Coleman v. Adams, et al.

Filing 89

ORDER Granting 83 Plaintiff's Motion to File Opposition Nunc Pro Tunc, signed by Magistrate Judge Gerald B. Cohn on 8/21/12. (Gonzalez, R)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
8
9

SAAHDI COLEMAN,

10

CASE NO. 1:06-cv-00836-AWI-GBC (PC)

Plaintiff,

11

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION
TO FILE OPPOSITION NUNC PRO TUNC

v.
(Doc. 83)

12

DERRAL G. ADAMS, et al.,

13

Defendants.

14
15

/

16
17

I.

Procedural History

18

Plaintiff Saahdi Coleman (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights

19

action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On October 6, 2011, Defendants filed a motion for summary

20

judgment. Doc. 70. March 9, 2012, Plaintiff filed an opposition to the motion for summary

21

judgment. Doc. 75; Doc. 76; Doc. 77; Doc. 79. On Mar 26, 2012, Defendants filed a reply. Doc.

22

82. On April 12, 2012, Plaintiff filed a motion to consider his opposition as filed timely. Doc. 83.

23

On April 16, 2012, Defendants filed an opposition. Doc. 85. On May 22, 2012, Plaintiff filed a

24

reply. Doc. 86.

25

On July 6, 2012, the Ninth Circuit found that the notice and warning of requirements for

26

opposing a defendant’s motion for summary judgment should be issued contemporaneously when

27

a defendant files a motion for summary judgment, as opposed to a year or more in advance. Woods

28

v. Carey, --- F.3d ---, 2012 WL 2626912, at * 4 (9th Cir. Jul. 6, 2012). In order to address the time
Page 1 of 2

1

delay between providing notice and the filing of Defendants’ motion, On August 8, 2012, the Court

2

issued an amended second informational order and provided Plaintiff an opportunity to submit a new

3

opposition. Doc. 87; Doc. 88.

4

Given that Plaintiff is being provided an additional chance to submit a timely opposition, the

5

Court will grant Plaintiff’s motion filed on April 12, 2013, and considers Plaintiff’s original

6

opposition filed on March 9, 2012, to be timely, should Plaintiff desire to stand on this opposition

7

rather than file a new opposition.

8
9

II.

10
11

Conclusion and Order
Therefore, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: Plaintiff’s motion filed on April 12, 2012,

to consider Plaintiff’s opposition as timely filed, is GRANTED. Doc. 83.

12
13

IT IS SO ORDERED.

14
15

Dated:
0jh02o

August 21, 2012
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Page 2 of 2