Samuels v. Adame et al

Filing 61

ORDER Granting Plaintiff Leave to File Amended Opposition or Proceed With Current Oppositions 59 , signed by Magistrate Judge Dennis L. Beck on 7/31/12. Response Due Within Thirty Days. (Gonzalez, R)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9
10

ROBERT EARL SAMUELS,

11
12
13

Plaintiff,
v.

Case No. 1:09-cv-01320-AWI-DLB PC
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF LEAVE
TO FILE AMENDED OPPOSITION OR
PROCEED WITH CURRENT
OPPOSITIONS (ECF No. 59)

G. ADAME, et al.,
RESPONSE DUE WITHIN THIRTY DAYS

14

Defendants.

15
16

Plaintiff Robert Earl Samuels (“Plaintiff”) is a prisoner in the custody of the California

17

Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (“CDCR”). Plaintiff is proceeding pro se and in

18

forma pauperis in this civil action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action is proceeding against

19

Defendants G. Adame, P. Gentry, B. Medrano, R. Nicholas, F. Rivera, E. Sailer, and D. Snyder for

20

excessive force and against Defendant C. Farnsworth for deliberate indifference to a serious medical

21

need in violation of the Eighth Amendment. Pending before the Court is Defendants’ motion, filed

22

July 25, 2012, to grant Plaintiff additional time to supplement his opposition to Defendants’ motions

23

for summary judgment. ECF No. 59. Defendants filed motions for summary judgment on February

24

6, 2012 and February 27, 2012. ECF Nos. 44, 50.

25

In light of the recent decision in Woods v. Carey, Nos. 09-15548, 09-16113, 2012 WL

26

2626912, at *5 (9th Cir. Jul. 6, 2012), Plaintiff must be provided with “fair notice” of the

27

requirements for opposing a motion for summary judgment at the time the motion is brought, and the

28

notice given in this case over a year prior does not suffice. Defendants provide notice pursuant to
1

1

Rand v. Rowland, 154 F.3d 952, 962-63 (9th Cir. 1998) (en banc) in their pending motion. Defs.’

2

Mot. 2:4-4:6, ECF No. 59. Plaintiff had filed oppositions to Defendants’ motions for summary

3

judgment without benefit of the Rand warning as required by Woods. Pl.’s Opp’ns, ECF Nos. 49,

4

53. The Court will not consider supplemental oppositions, however, and Plaintiff has two options

5

upon receipt of this order. Plaintiff may either (1) stand on his previously-filed oppositions or (2)

6

withdraw them and file an amended opposition.

7

Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

8

1.

9

his oppositions and file an amended opposition;

10
11

Plaintiff may, within thirty (30) days from the date of service of this order, withdraw

2.

If Plaintiff does not file an amended opposition in response to this order, his existing

oppositions will be considered in resolving Defendants’ motions for summary judgment; and

12

3.

If Plaintiff elects to file an amended opposition, Defendants’ existing reply will not be

13

considered and they may file an amended reply within fourteen (14) days from the date of service of

14

Plaintiff’s amended opposition.

15
16
17

IT IS SO ORDERED.

18

Dated:

/s/ Dennis

July 31, 2012

L. Beck

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

19

DEAC_Signature-END:

20

3b142a

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2