Underwood v. Knowles et al

Filing 132

ORDER Granting Plaintiff's 129 Motion to Submit Three Affidavits in Support of Opposition to Motion for Summary Judgment; ORDER for Clerk to File Three Affidavits as Plaintiff's Exhibits in Support of his Opposition signed by Magistrate Judge Gary S. Austin on 06/08/2012. (Flores, E)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE 8 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 VALENTINE E. UNDERWOOD, 1:08-cv-00986-GSA-PC 11 ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO SUBMIT THREE AFFIDAVITS IN SUPPORT OF OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (Doc. 129.) Plaintiff, 12 vs. 13 14 M. KNOWLES, et al., ORDER FOR CLERK TO FILE THREE AFFIDAVITS AS PLAINTIFF’S EXHIBITS IN SUPPORT OF HIS OPPOSITION 15 16 Defendants. ________________________________/ 17 Valentine Underwood ("Plaintiff") is a prisoner proceeding pro se with this civil rights 18 action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff filed the Complaint commencing this action on July 19 17, 2008. (Doc. 1.) This action now proceeds on the original Complaint, against defendants 20 Correctional Officer (“C/O”) M. Northcutt and C/O S. Martin for retaliation, in violation of the 21 First Amendment; and against defendants C/O M. Northcutt, C/O S. Martin, C/O D. Caviness, C/O 22 A. Trujillo, and C/O P. Truitt, ("Defendants") for use of excessive force, in violation of the Eighth 23 Amendment.1 The parties have consented to Magistrate Judge jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 24 25 26 27 28 1 Defendant Seth Lantz was dismissed from this action on July 18, 2011, via Plaintiff’s motion to dismiss. (Doc. 107.) Defendant J. Fambrough was dismissed from this action on December 9, 2011, via Plaintiff's motion to dismiss. (Doc. 121.) All other claims and defendants were dismissed by the Court on October 21, 2009, based on Plaintiff’s failure to state a claim. (Doc. 31.) 1 1 § 636(c), and on June 15, 2011, this case was reassigned to the undersigned for all further 2 proceedings. (Docs. 4, 97, 102.) 3 Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment on February 17, 2012. (Doc. 122.) On 4 April 26, 2012, Plaintiff filed an opposition to the motion. (Doc. 127.) Four days later, on April 5 30, 2012, Plaintiff filed a motion to submit three certified affidavits in support of his opposition. 6 (Doc. 129.) Defendants have not responded to Plaintiff’s motion. 7 Plaintiff explains that he was unable to submit the certified affidavits with his opposition 8 because he did not receive the affidavits until after he had submitted the opposition. Good cause 9 appearing, Plaintiff’s motion shall be granted, and the certified affidavits shall be filed as exhibits 10 to the opposition. 11 Therefore, based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 12 1. 13 Plaintiff’s motion to submit three certified affidavits in support of his opposition to Defendants’ motion for summary judgment is GRANTED; and 14 2. The Clerk is DIRECTED to file Plaintiff’s three affidavits, attached to the Motion 15 filed on April 30, 2012 (Doc. 129), as Plaintiff’s exhibits in support of his 16 opposition (Doc. 127) to Defendants’ motion for summary judgment. 17 18 IT IS SO ORDERED. 19 Dated: 6i0kij June 8, 2012 /s/ Gary S. Austin UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 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?