Singleton v. Hedgepath et al

Filing 121

ORDER GRANTING Request to Renew Motion for Summary Judgment 118 , signed by Magistrate Judge Gary S. Austin on 12/15/10: Plaintiff is GRANTED leave to file a new motion for summary judgment; and Plaintiff's request for a court order requiring defendants to respond to his renewed motion is DENIED without prejudice. (Hellings, J)

Download PDF
(PC) Singleton v. Hedgepath et al Doc. 121 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Defendants. 15 / 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Plaintiff Kelvin X. Singleton ("Plaintiff") is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1983. On December 2, 2010, Plaintiff filed a motion to renew his motion for summary judgment. (Doc. 118.) As Plaintiff reminds the court, the court's order of November 8, 2010 denied Plaintiff's prior motion for partial summary judgment as premature because it was filed before Defendants had a realistic opportunity to conduct discovery. (Doc. 99.) The court denied the prior motion without prejudice to renewal of the motion at a later stage of the proceedings. Id. The deadline for conducting discovery in this action expired on November 30, 2010. Therefore, good cause appearing, Plaintiff's request to renew his motion for summary judgment shall be granted. Plaintiff is advised that the renewed motion must be complete in itself, without reference to the prior motion. Plaintiff must file the renewed motion on or before the deadline in this action for the parties to file pretrial dispositive motions. 1 Dockets.Justia.com UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA KELVIN X. SINGLETON, Plaintiff, v. A. HEDGEPATH, et al., 1:08-cv-00095-AWI-GSA-PC ORDER GRANTING REQUEST TO RENEW MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (Doc. 118.) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Plaintiff also requests the court to issue an order requiring defendants to file a response to Plaintiff's renewed motion. Defendants are not required to respond to the renewed motion until after Plaintiff has filed it. Local Rule 230(l). Therefore, this request is denied. Accordingly, good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 1. Plaintiff's request to renew his motion for summary judgment, filed on December 2, 2010, is GRANTED; 2. Plaintiff is GRANTED leave to file a new motion for summary judgment, on or before the deadline to file pretrial dispositive motions;1 and 3. Plaintiff's request for a court order requiring defendants to respond to his renewed motion is DENIED without prejudice. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: 6i0kij December 15, 2010 /s/ Gary S. Austin UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE T h e current deadline for the parties to file pretrial dispositive motions is February 7, 2011, pursuant to the c o u r t's scheduling order of March 31, 2010. (Doc. 47.) 1 2

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?