Carpenter v. Sullivan, et al.

Filing 188

ORDER Permitting Plaintiff Opportunity to Withdraw Opposition and File Amended Opposition in Light of Separately-Issued Summary Judgment Notice, signed by Magistrate Judge Gerald B. Cohn on 8/3/2012. (Twenty-One Day Deadline.) (Marrujo, C)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

WILLIE LEE CARPENTER,
CASE NO. 1:07-cv-00114-AWI-GBC

12
Plaintiff,
13
vs.
14
W.J SULLIVAN, et al.,

ORDER PERMITTING PLAINTIFF
OPPORTUNITY TO WITHDRAW OPPOSITION
AND FILE AMENDED OPPOSITION IN LIGHT
OF SEPARATELY-ISSUED SUMMARY
JUDGMENT NOTICE

15
Defendants.

(Doc. 147; Doc. 187)

16
________________________________/

TWENTY-ONE DAY DEADLINE

17
18
I.

Procedural History and Woods v. Carey

19
Plaintiff Willie Lee Carpenter (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma
20
pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On December 10, 2008, the Court
21
issued a second informational order, advising Plaintiff that Defendants may file a motion for summary
22
judgment and how Plaintiff must oppose the motion in order to avoid dismissal, pursuant to Rand v.
23
Rowland, 154 F.3d 952 (9th Cir. 1998). Doc. 23-1. On October 12, 2011, Defendants filed a motion
24
for summary judgment. Doc. 147. On February 21, 2012, Plaintiff filed an opposition to the motion for
25
summary judgment. Doc. 179. On February 23, 2012, Defendants filed a Reply to Plaintiff’s
26
opposition. Doc. 180. On April 13, 2012, Plaintiff filed a notice of erratum regarding Plaintiff’s
27
statement of disputed facts. Doc. 181. On July 20, 2012, Defendants file a notice pursuant to Rand v.
28
Rowland, 154 F.3d 952 (9th Cir. 1998). Doc. 187.
1

1

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

2

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

3

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

4

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

5

between providing notice and the filing of Defendants’ motion, Defendants filed a notice to Plaintiff,

6

in accordance with Woods.

7

II.

Plaintiff has Option to (1) Stand on Existing Opposition to Motion for Summary

8

Judgment or (2) File Amended Opposition Per Amended Second Informational Order

9

In light of the separately-issued notice pursuant to Woods, the Court will provide Plaintiff with

10

two options upon receipt of this order. Plaintiff may either: 1) stand on his previously-filed opposition;

11

or 2) withdraw the existing opposition and file an amended opposition.

12

Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

13

1.

Within twenty-one (21) days from the date of service of this order, Plaintiff may elect

14

to:

15

a.

Stand on his existing opposition already submitted to the Court; or

16

b.

Withdraw his opposition and file an amended opposition;

17

2.

If Plaintiff does not elect to file an amended opposition in response to this order within

18

twenty-one (21) days, the Court will consider his existing opposition in resolving

19

Defendants’ motion for summary judgment;

20

3.

21

If Plaintiff elects to file an amended opposition, the Court will not consider Defendants’
existing reply; and

22

4.

Defendants may file an amended reply pursuant to Local Rule 230(l).

23
24

IT IS SO ORDERED.

25
26

Dated:
0jh02o

August 3, 2012
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

27
28
2