Morris v. State Bar of California et al

Filing 167

ORDER DENYING RELIEF FROM SUMMARY JUDGMENT signed by District Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill on October 8, 2010. (Lira, I)

Morris v. State Bar of California et al

Doc. 167

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 STATE BAR OF CALIFORNIA, et al., 14 Defendants. 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Plaintiff has failed to file a proposed opposition to the summary judgment motion when he filed his motion for relief. The Court cannot determine whether there is any need to provide relief without a proposed opposition. Accordingly, the motion for relief from the summary judgment order will be denied without prejudice." (Doc. 161, Order Sept. 13, 2010.) The Court granted plaintiff the opportunity to submit an opposition to the summary judgment, such that the Court could consider whether plaintiff should be relieved of the Summary Judgment Order: The motion for relief from the judgment judgment is DENIED, without prejudice. Plaintiff may refile his motion to set aside the summary judgment with his proposed opposition to the summary judgment motion, 1 stated: "Here, plaintiff requests relief from the summary judgment order, but the motion is more directed at his motion to amend the complaint. / On August 9, 2010, Plaintiff filed a request for relief from this Court's Summary Judgment Order. (Doc. 115, Court Order filed June 9, 2010.) In considering plaintiff's request to be relieved from the Summary Judgment Order, the Court vs. GREGORY MORRIS, Plaintiffs, CASE NO. CV F 09-0026 LJO GSA ORDER DENYING RELIEF FROM SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Dockets.Justia.com

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 Dated: b9ed48

no later than 14 days from the date of service of this order. Failure to file timely the motion with the proposed opposition will result in denial of the motion for relief with prejudice." (Doc. 161, Order p. 5.) Rather than comply with the Court's order, and file a proposed opposition, plaintiff filed a "Motion for Extension." The motion, ostensibly, was to give plaintiff additional time to conduct discovery and respond to the summary judgment. (See Doc. 163.) However, the substance of the request for Extension was to grant discovery on claims that were not before the Court, and permit discovery on claims which were proposed in plaintiff's proposed amended complaint - - the warrantless searches.1 Plaintiff did not argue that he needed the discovery to oppose the summary judgment that was before the Court, and from which he sought relief. Rather, plaintiff's "Motion for Extension" was to request discovery for potential claims in a proposed amended complaint, which were not yet before the Court. This "Motion for Extension" does not respond, and does not address, the relief plaintiff originally sought and for which the Court granted leave to file an opposition. Accordingly, the documents that have been filed do not address the Summary Judgment Order, and therefore this Court's order on Defendant's Summary Judgment is affirmed in its entirety. CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, plaintiff's motion (Doc.143) to be relieved of the Summary Judgment Order is DENIED. The Court's Order on Defendant's Summary Judgment (Doc. 115) is affirmed in its entirety. IT IS SO ORDERED. October 8, 2010 /s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

"W e need to develop the area of Supervisory liability and Policy, custom and procedures." (Doc. 163, plaintiff's r e q u e s t for discovery.)

1

2