Rasberry v. Trevino, et al.
Filing
57
ORDER GRANTING Defendants' 56 Motion; ORDER PERMITTING Plaintiff Opportunity to Withdraw Opposition and File Amended Opposition, if he so wishes; Thirty Day Deadline signed by Magistrate Judge Gary S. Austin on 7/30/2012. (Sant Agata, S)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
9
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
JAMES RASBERRY,
12
Plaintiff,
13
14
1:08-cv-01767-AWI-GSA (PC)
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’
MOTION
(Doc. 56.)
vs.
A. TREVINO, M.D., et al.,
ORDER PERMITTING PLAINTIFF
OPPORTUNITY TO WITHDRAW
OPPOSITION AND FILE AMENDED
OPPOSITION, IF HE SO WISHES
15
Defendants.
16
THIRTY DAY DEADLINE
17
________________________________/
18
I.
BACKGROUND
19
James Rasberry (“Plaintiff”) is a prisoner proceeding pro se with this civil rights action
20
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action now proceeds with Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint
21
filed on March 2, 2010, against defendants A. Trevino and L. Miguel (“Defendants”) for use of
22
excessive force in violation of the Eighth Amendment and discrimination in violation of the Equal
23
Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. (Doc. 25.) On October 14, 2011, Defendants
24
filed a motion for summary judgment, which is now pending. (Doc. 50.) On December 7, 2011,
25
Plaintiff filed an opposition, and on December 14, 2011, Defendants filed a reply. (Docs. 51, 52.)
26
On July 5, 2012, Findings and Recommendations were entered, recommending that Defendants’
27
28
1
1
motion for summary judgment be granted. (Doc. 55.) Plaintiff was granted thirty days in which
2
to file objections to the Findings and Recommendations, and to date, Plaintiff has not filed
3
objections. Id.
4
On July 25, 2012, Defendants provided Plaintiff with a Rand Warning and filed a motion
5
for Plaintiff to be permitted to file a supplemental opposition to the motion for summary judgment.
6
(Doc. 56.) Defendants’ motion is now before the Court.
7
II.
DEFENDANTS’ MOTION
8
Defendants have served a Rand Warning upon Plaintiff, which informs Plaintiff of his
9
rights and responsibilities in opposing a motion for summary judgment. Defendants request that
10
in light of the Ninth Circuit’s decision in Woods v. Carey, Nos. 09-15548, 09-16113, 2012 WL
11
2626912, *1 (9th Cir. July 6, 2012), Plaintiff be permitted to file a supplemental briefing in
12
opposition to the pending motion for summary judgment in this action.
13
III.
DISCUSSION
14
In Woods, the Ninth Circuit required that a prisoner proceeding pro se with a civil rights
15
action, such as Plaintiff, be provided with “fair notice” of the requirements for opposing a motion
16
for summary judgment at the time the motion is brought. Woods, 2012 WL 2626912 at *5. Thus,
17
the notice given by the Court in this case more than two years ago does not suffice.1
18
The Court finds good cause at this juncture to open a thirty-day time period for Plaintiff to
19
file further opposition to the pending motion for summary judgment, if he so wishes. Therefore,
20
Defendants’ motion for Plaintiff to be permitted to file further opposition shall be granted. The
21
Court will not consider multiple oppositions, however, and Plaintiff has two options upon receipt
22
of this order. Plaintiff may either (1) stand on his previously-filed opposition or (2) withdraw it
23
and file an Amended Opposition. The Amended Opposition, if any, must be complete in itself and
24
///
25
26
27
28
1
The Court served the Second Informational Order, providing “fair notice” of the requirements, upon
Plaintiff on April 3, 2009. (Doc. 10-1.)
2
1
must not refer back to any of the opposition documents Plaintiff filed on December 7, 2011. L.R.
2
220.2
3
III.
CONCLUSION
4
Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:
5
1.
Defendants’ motion to allow further briefing by Plaintiff is GRANTED;
6
2.
Plaintiff may, within thirty (30) days from the date of service of this order,
7
withdraw his opposition and file an Amended Opposition to Defendants’ motion
8
for summary judgment of October 14, 2011;
9
3.
If Plaintiff does not file an Amended Opposition in response to this order, his
10
existing opposition will be considered in resolving Defendants’ motion for
11
summary judgment; and
12
4.
13
If Plaintiff elects to file an Amended Opposition, Defendants may file a reply
pursuant to Local Rule 230(l).
14
15
IT IS SO ORDERED.
16
Dated:
6i0kij
July 30, 2012
/s/ Gary S. Austin
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2
Local Rule 220 provides, in part: “Unless prior approval to the contrary is obtained from the Court, every
pleading to which an amendment or supplement is permitted as a matter of right or has been allowed by court order
shall be retyped and filed so that it is complete in itself without reference to the prior or superseded pleading. No
pleading shall be deemed amended or supplemented until this Rule has been complied with. All changed pleadings
shall contain copies of all exhibits referred to in the changed pleading.”
3
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?