Bussiere v. Cano et al

Filing 101

ORDER Finding as Moot Motions to Supplement or Strike Objections as Moot as Plaintiff Filed an Amended Oppostiion Pursuant to Woods v. Carey, re 91 , 97 , 98 , signed by Magistrate Judge Gerald B. Cohn on 8/23/12. (Gonzalez, R)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

8
ARTHUR T. BUSSIERE,

CASE NO. 1:10-cv-00945-AWI-GBC (PC)

9
Plaintiff,

ORDER FINDING MOTIONS TO
SUPPLEMENT OR STRIKE OBJECTIONS AS
MOOT AS PLAINTIFF FILED AN AMENDED
OPPOSITION PURSUANT TO WOODS v.
CAREY

10
v.
11
CANO, et al.,
12
Defendants.
13

Docs. 91, 97, 98
/

14
15
16

On May 26, 2010, Plaintiff Arthur T. Bussiere (“Plaintiff”), a state prisoner proceeding pro
se and in forma pauperis, filed this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

17

On November 7, 2011, Defendant Lopez filed a Motion to Dismiss for failure to exhaust

18

administrative remedies. Doc. 62. On December 2, 2011, Plaintiff filed an Opposition to Defendant’s

19

motion to dismiss. Doc. 68. On December 13, 2011, Defendant filed a Reply to Plaintiff’s

20

opposition. Doc. 69. On January 9, 2012, Plaintiff filed a Sur-Reply. Doc. 70. On March 5, 2012,

21

the Magistrate Judge issued Findings and Recommendations, recommending granting Defendant’s

22

motion to dismiss, for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. Doc. 81. On March 23, 2012,

23

Plaintiff filed Objections. Doc. 84. On May 29, 2012, Plaintiff filed an Addendum to Objections.

24

Doc. 90. On June 5, 2012, Defendant Lopez filed a Motion to Strike Plaintiff’s Addendum to

25

Objections. Doc. 91. On June 11, 2012, Plaintiff filed a Second Addendum to Objections. Doc. 92.

26

On June 18, 2012, Plaintiff filed an Opposition to Defendant Lopez’s Motion to Strike. Doc. 94. On

27

July 18, 2012 and July 23, 2012, Plaintiff filed motions to supplement his objections / opposition.

28

Docs. 97, 98.
Page 1 of 2

1

On July 6, 2012, the Ninth Circuit found that the notice and warning of requirements for

2

opposing a defendant’s motion to dismiss should be issued contemporaneously when a defendant

3

files a motion to dismiss, as opposed to a year or more in advance. Woods v. Carey, 684 F.3d 934,

4

936 (9th Cir. 2012). On July 18, 2012, the Court issued an amended second informational order to

5

Plaintiff, in accordance with Woods, and provided Plaintiff with twenty-one (21) days to stand on

6

his existing opposition or withdraw his opposition and file an amended opposition. Docs. 95, 96. On

7

August 2, 2012, Plaintiff filed an amended opposition to the motion to dismiss. Doc. 99. Defendant

8

did not file an amended reply. Thus, the Court will decide Defendant’s motion on Plaintiff’s

9

amended opposition to the motion to dismiss, pursuant to Woods. Therefore, Plaintiff’s motions to

10

supplement his objections / opposition and Defendant’s motions to strike Plaintiff’s supplemental

11

objections are MOOT for review.

12
13
14

IT IS SO ORDERED.

15
16

Dated:
7j8cce

August 23, 2012
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Page 2 of 2